Adolph Prince Co. v. Pyla

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Adolph Prince Co. v. Pyla

145 N.Y.S. 881

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 13, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 145 N.Y.S. 881 (Adolph Prince Co. v. Pyla) 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

Adolph Prince Co. v. Pyla, 145 N.Y.S. 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sued for the price of certain liquors claimed to have been sold and delivered by it to defendant. The only evidence of the sale and delivery of the goods by the plaintiff was a receipt on one of plaintiff’s shipping slips signed by defendant, and the testimony of plaintiff’s driver, who said: “I went in and told him I got some goods for him from the Prince Company—what he ordered.” This is - no proof of a sale by plaintiff, and the complaint should have been dismissed on defendant’s motion. Defendant not only denied this testimony of the driver, but showed that he had actually paid another party for these goods, and detailed the circumstances of the purchase. There was proof that this third party was the agent of the plaintiff, and, of course, none at all that, if he had been such agent, defendant knew it.

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

PAGE, J., concurs. LEHMAN, J., concurs in the result.

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

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sued for the price of certain liquors claimed to have been sold and delivered by it to defendant. The only evidence of the sale and delivery of the goods by the plaintiff was a receipt on one of plaintiff’s shipping slips signed by defendant, and the testimony of plaintiff’s driver, who said: “I went in and told him I got some goods for him from the Prince Company—what he ordered.” This is - no proof of a sale by plaintiff, and the complaint should have been dismissed on defendant’s motion. Defendant not only denied this testimony of the driver, but showed that he had actually paid another party for these goods, and detailed the circumstances of the purchase. There was proof that this third party was the agent of the plaintiff, and, of course, none at all that, if he had been such agent, defendant knew it.

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

PAGE, J., concurs. LEHMAN, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 N.Y.S. 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adolph-prince-co-v-pyla-nyappterm-1914.