Allen Schiffman & Co. v. Burnson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Allen Schiffman & Co. v. Burnson

148 A. 153, 8 N.J. Misc. 1, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 14

DecidedDecember 19, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 148 A. 153 (Allen Schiffman & Co. v. Burnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen Schiffman & Co. v. Burnson, 148 A. 153, 8 N.J. Misc. 1, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 14 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover for a breach of contract the sum of $325 in the District Court of the First Judicial District of Monmouth county. The defendant filed a specification of defenses and a notice of recoupment, claiming $500 damages. The case was tried by the court without a jury, one witness sworn on behalf of the plaintiff and one witness sworn on behalf of the defendant, resulting in a judgment by the court as follows: “The recoupment will be disallowed. Let judgment of no cause of action be entered on the plaintiff’s case.” The case grew out of the purchase and sale of one hundred shares of the stock of the Jefferson Insurance Company and one hundred shares of the stock of the Merchants and Manufacturers Fire Insurance Company. There was no written contract of sale, and, hence, under section 4 of the Sales act (Comp. Stat., p. 4648), as the price of the stock sold was in excess of $500 the contract was not enforceable by action unless the goods or part thereof had been delivered and accepted, which was not the fact, or unless the buyer had given something in earnest to bind the bargain or in part payment. In this aspect it was admitted that after some time the buyer had paid plaintiff’s $18.65 for interest on the balance carried on their books. In our judgment, that payment does not take the case out of the statute. The check for interest was neither earnest nor part payment, nor did it on any other g;round take the case out of the statute. The other questions involved are largely questions of fact, and [3]*3as to these we are satisfied with the conclusions of the trial judge, who wrote quite an elaborate opinion vindicating his conclusions.

The judgment of the First Judicial District Court of Monmouth county is therefore affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover for a breach of contract the sum of $325 in the District Court of the First Judicial District of Monmouth county. The defendant filed a specification of defenses and a notice of recoupment, claiming $500 damages. The case was tried by the court without a jury, one witness sworn on behalf of the plaintiff and one witness sworn on behalf of the defendant, resulting in a judgment by the court as follows: “The recoupment will be disallowed. Let judgment of no cause of action be entered on the plaintiff’s case.” The case grew out of the purchase and sale of one hundred shares of the stock of the Jefferson Insurance Company and one hundred shares of the stock of the Merchants and Manufacturers Fire Insurance Company. There was no written contract of sale, and, hence, under section 4 of the Sales act (Comp. Stat., p. 4648), as the price of the stock sold was in excess of $500 the contract was not enforceable by action unless the goods or part thereof had been delivered and accepted, which was not the fact, or unless the buyer had given something in earnest to bind the bargain or in part payment. In this aspect it was admitted that after some time the buyer had paid plaintiff’s $18.65 for interest on the balance carried on their books. In our judgment, that payment does not take the case out of the statute. The check for interest was neither earnest nor part payment, nor did it on any other g;round take the case out of the statute. The other questions involved are largely questions of fact, and [3]*3as to these we are satisfied with the conclusions of the trial judge, who wrote quite an elaborate opinion vindicating his conclusions.

The judgment of the First Judicial District Court of Monmouth county is therefore affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A. 153, 8 N.J. Misc. 1, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-schiffman-co-v-burnson-nj-1929.