This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1874 edition. Excerpt: ...and enable him to pursue the property itself.' The case of Newton 1: . Galbraith, 5 John. 119, is similar in principle. Galbraith sued Newton on notes payable in produce, at N cwton's house; on trial the defendant proved that on the day the note became due he had hay in his barn, and was then ready to pay in hay; but no particular quantity was proved. The court said the tender proved was insuflicient, but they relied upon the uncertainty as to quanlit/. The case of Barnes 1). Grahani, 4 Cowen, 452, is more direct and explicit. Defendant gave his note for $127, payable in lumber. The defendant offered to prove that when the note became due, he had, at his mill in Italy, where both parties lived, a sufficient quantity of lumber of the quality described, in bulk, and not sorted or separated from other lumber at the mill. The decision was against the defendant on two grounds: 1. Because no place of delivery being expressed in the note, it was the duty of the defendant to seek the plaintiff and request him to appoint some proper place for the delivery of the lumber. 2. And because he never separated the property he in As, in case of money, so, of chattels, a tender must be uncondi tional. Tender must be unconditional. Thus, where the debtor left the chattels at the place specified, in the hands of a person, who was an thorized to deliver them only in case the creditor produced and gave up the written contract, it was held that the chattels were not so ready at the time and place as to discharge the contract. (kl) Under a contract to deliver chattels at a certain time and Defence of part deliv ery' specified. (Z) place, it is a good defence pro tanto that the creditor received and accepted a part of the articles before the day...