Garfield v. Paris,
96 U.S. 557 (1877)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Garfield v. Paris, 96 U.S. 557 (1877)

Garfield v. Paris

96 U.S. 557


1. Matters of evidence are not required to be stated in a bill of particulars.

2. A purchaser's receipt and acceptance of goods sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds may be constructive.

3. A. contracted by parol, in New York, for the purchase of a large quantity of spirituous liquor of B., who, by the agreement, was to furnish certain labels. B. delivered them, pursuant to instruction, to A. in New York, and slipped the liquor to A. in Michigan, where he resided. A., when sued for the price of the liquor, no part of which had been paid, insisted that the contract was not completed until the delivery of the liquor in Michigan, and he relied upon the prohibitory liquor law of that state, which declares that all such contracts are null and void. The jury found that the labels added to the value of the liquor and formed part of the price, and that A. accepted them in New York as a part of the goods sold. Held that the finding of the jury upon the question of acceptance being final and conclusive, the contract was executed in New York, and was by the laws thereof valid.

This was an action by Paris, Allen & Co., of New York, against Garfield & Wheeler, of Detroit, Mich., to recover for certain spirituous liquors sold to the defendants by the plaintiffs in the City of New York.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Page 96 U. S. 559

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.