Acme Electric Lamp Co. v. Kingston Carriage Co.

City of New York Municipal Court

Acme Electric Lamp Co. v. Kingston Carriage Co.

31 Misc. 823, 64 N.Y.S. 377

DecidedMay 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Misc. 823 (Acme Electric Lamp Co. v. Kingston Carriage Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acme Electric Lamp Co. v. Kingston Carriage Co., 31 Misc. 823, 64 N.Y.S. 377 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Conlan, J.

The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover the value of certain goods delivered to the defendant under a written contract, which were to be furnished from time to time, with the proviso that such goods, as failed to do what was represented by the plaintiff, might be returned by the defendant.

Under the terms of this agreement the plaintiff- delivered to [824]*824the defendant in December, 1896, certain goods of the alleged value of $200.25, and the defendant claiming a breach of this provision of the contract above referred to, undertook at some time thereafter to return the goods so delivered, and one of the questions which was submitted to the jury was whether such rer turn was made within a reasonable time after the alleged defects were discovered and pointed out, and the jury determined that issue in favor of the plaintiff.

With the submission of this question to the jury, we think, the entire case was disposed of, and as it was the province of the jury to determine this issue, the court on appeal will not interfere to disturb the finding.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed.

Fitzsimoits, Oh. J., concurs.

Judgment and order affirmed.

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

Conlan, J.

The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover the value of certain goods delivered to the defendant under a written contract, which were to be furnished from time to time, with the proviso that such goods, as failed to do what was represented by the plaintiff, might be returned by the defendant.

Under the terms of this agreement the plaintiff- delivered to [824]*824the defendant in December, 1896, certain goods of the alleged value of $200.25, and the defendant claiming a breach of this provision of the contract above referred to, undertook at some time thereafter to return the goods so delivered, and one of the questions which was submitted to the jury was whether such rer turn was made within a reasonable time after the alleged defects were discovered and pointed out, and the jury determined that issue in favor of the plaintiff.

With the submission of this question to the jury, we think, the entire case was disposed of, and as it was the province of the jury to determine this issue, the court on appeal will not interfere to disturb the finding.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed.

Fitzsimoits, Oh. J., concurs.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Misc. 823, 64 N.Y.S. 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acme-electric-lamp-co-v-kingston-carriage-co-nynyccityct-1900.