Abrams v. Bloch

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Abrams v. Bloch

101 N.Y.S. 109

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 14, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 101 N.Y.S. 109 (Abrams v. Bloch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abrams v. Bloch, 101 N.Y.S. 109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Assuming that the plaintiff was employed to sell a six-story building, there is no competent evidence that the building in question was not a six-story building. In fact, the building was a six-story building within the ordinary meaning of the term. If the term “six-story building,” as used by the defendant, had some special meaning, understood by the parties, or which- they could fairly be charged with as understanding, according to which the building in question was not within the term, the burden was upon the plaintiff to show it, and this he failed to do by competent evidence.

There are other questions, which it is unnecessary to pass upon, as they may not be presented upon a new trial.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Assuming that the plaintiff was employed to sell a six-story building, there is no competent evidence that the building in question was not a six-story building. In fact, the building was a six-story building within the ordinary meaning of the term. If the term “six-story building,” as used by the defendant, had some special meaning, understood by the parties, or which- they could fairly be charged with as understanding, according to which the building in question was not within the term, the burden was upon the plaintiff to show it, and this he failed to do by competent evidence.

There are other questions, which it is unnecessary to pass upon, as they may not be presented upon a new trial.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 N.Y.S. 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrams-v-bloch-nyappterm-1906.