Atterbury v. Rourke

New York Supreme Court

Atterbury v. Rourke

24 N.Y.S. 1142, 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 935

DecidedJuly 28, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 24 N.Y.S. 1142 (Atterbury v. Rourke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atterbury v. Rourke, 24 N.Y.S. 1142, 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 935 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

DYKMAN, J.

This is an action for the recovery of damages resulting from a breach of warranty in the sale of 100 tons of Manchester Gunz bagging. The specific breach charged had relation to the shrinkage in the weight, the warranty being that there should not be more than 1 per cent, shrinkage, and the charge being that there was much more. The cause was tried at the circuit, and a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff for $275. The defendant Martin Rourke has appealed from the judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial upon the minutes of the court. An examination of the record discloses no error. The case was submitted to the jury by a very careful charge, and the verdict is well supported by the evidence. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

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

DYKMAN, J.

This is an action for the recovery of damages resulting from a breach of warranty in the sale of 100 tons of Manchester Gunz bagging. The specific breach charged had relation to the shrinkage in the weight, the warranty being that there should not be more than 1 per cent, shrinkage, and the charge being that there was much more. The cause was tried at the circuit, and a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff for $275. The defendant Martin Rourke has appealed from the judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial upon the minutes of the court. An examination of the record discloses no error. The case was submitted to the jury by a very careful charge, and the verdict is well supported by the evidence. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 N.Y.S. 1142, 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atterbury-v-rourke-nysupct-1893.