American Slicing Mach. Co. v. Kuchukian

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

American Slicing Mach. Co. v. Kuchukian

147 N.Y.S. 352

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 7, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 147 N.Y.S. 352 (American Slicing Mach. Co. v. Kuchukian) 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

American Slicing Mach. Co. v. Kuchukian, 147 N.Y.S. 352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment rendered.in favor of the defendant for costs upon a motioti made by the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s case upon the ground Sat the plaintiff failed to prove nonpayment of the indebtedness sued [353]*353for. The complaint alleged a sale and delivery by plaintiff to the defendant of a slicing machine, that the agreed price of said machine was $110, and that no part of such price had been paid, -except the sum of $10, and demanded judgment for $100, balance. The answer was in substance a general denial, and an affirmative defense that the sale was induced by fraudulent representations.

Under the pleadings, payment was an affirmative defense, which must be set forth and pleaded, and proof of nonpayment on the part of the plaintiff was not required. Acharan v. Samuel Bros., 144 App. Div. 182, 128 N. Y. Supp. 943. Moreover, a representative of the plaintiff testified that, so far as he knew, nothing had been paid- upon the indebtedness, except the sum of $10, and that he would have known if other payments had been made. This was sufficient to require proof of payment on the part of the defendant, if any was made.

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.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment rendered.in favor of the defendant for costs upon a motioti made by the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s case upon the ground Sat the plaintiff failed to prove nonpayment of the indebtedness sued [353]*353for. The complaint alleged a sale and delivery by plaintiff to the defendant of a slicing machine, that the agreed price of said machine was $110, and that no part of such price had been paid, -except the sum of $10, and demanded judgment for $100, balance. The answer was in substance a general denial, and an affirmative defense that the sale was induced by fraudulent representations.

Under the pleadings, payment was an affirmative defense, which must be set forth and pleaded, and proof of nonpayment on the part of the plaintiff was not required. Acharan v. Samuel Bros., 144 App. Div. 182, 128 N. Y. Supp. 943. Moreover, a representative of the plaintiff testified that, so far as he knew, nothing had been paid- upon the indebtedness, except the sum of $10, and that he would have known if other payments had been made. This was sufficient to require proof of payment on the part of the defendant, if any was made.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 N.Y.S. 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-slicing-mach-co-v-kuchukian-nyappterm-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack