Windmuller v. Pope
Cases that cite this one
33 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Continental Cotton Co. v. Mann (City of New York Municipal Court 1921)
- Kelly v. . Security Mutual Life Ins. Co. (N.Y. 1906)
- Stanford v. McGill (N.D. 1897)
- Todd v. Gamble (New York Supreme Court 1893)
- In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2007)
- Sherman v. Hallmark (Civil Court of the City of New York 1999)
- American List Corp. v. U.S. News & World Report, Inc. (N.Y. 1989)
- Tenavision, Inc. v. Neuman (N.Y. 1978)
- McCann v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance (New York Supreme Court 1964)
- Indian River Islands Corp. v. Manufacturers Trust Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1938)
- A. Lenobel, Inc. v. Senif (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1937)
- Genovese v. A. Lenobel, Inc. (City of New York Municipal Court 1933)
- Ducasse v. American Yellow Taxi Operators, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1928)
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. Meer (New York Supreme Court 1921)
- Sheldon v. Argos Mercantile Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1920)
- Wallingford v. Bushton Grain & Supply Co. (Kan. 1917)
- Werner v. Werner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1915)
- Indiana Life Endowment Co. v. Carnithan (Ind. Ct. App. 1915)
- Poel v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1913)
- Caley v. Mills (Kan. 1909)
- Silleck v. Robinson (New York Supreme Court 1908)
- Perlman v. Levy (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1908)
- Oklahoma Vinegar Co. v. Carter & Ford (Ga. 1902)
- Saxe v. . Penokee Lumber Co. (N.Y. 1899)
- Deery v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The following is an extract from the opinion:
“We think no error is presented upon the record which requires a reversal of the judgment. The defendants having on the 12th of June, 1880, notified the plaintiffs that they would not receive the iron rails or pay for them, and having informed them on the next day that if they brought the iron to Rew York they would do so at their own peril, and advised them that they had better stop at once attempting to carry out the contract, so as to make the loss as small as possible, the plaintiffs were justified in treating the contract as broken by the defendant at that time, and were entitled to bring the action immediately for the breach, without tendering the delivery of the ñon, or awaiting the expiration of the period of performance fixed by the contract; nor could the defendants retract their renunciation of the contract after the plaintiffs had acted upon it and, by a sale of the iron to other parties, changed them position. (Dillon v. Anderson, 43 N. Y. 231; Howard v. Daly, 61 id. 362; Ferris v. Spooner, 102 id. 12; Hochster v. De La Tour, 2 El. & El. 678; Cort v. Ambergate, etc., Railway Co., 17 Ad. & El. 127 ; Crabtree v. Messermoth, 19 Ia. 179 ; Benjamin on Sales, §§ 567, 568.)
“ The ordinary rule of damages in an action by a vendor of goods and chattels, for a refusal by the vendee to accept and pay for them, is the difference between the contract-price and the market value of the property at the time and place of
opinion for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.