Boorstein v. Howard

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Boorstein v. Howard

56 A.2d 427, 136 N.J.L. 359, 1948 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 243

DecidedJanuary 6, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.2d 427 (Boorstein v. Howard) 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

Boorstein v. Howard, 56 A.2d 427, 136 N.J.L. 359, 1948 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 243 (N.J. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wachenfeld, J.

Appellant, alleging fraud, seeks to re-

dover $150 paid to settle a claim arising from purchase of clothing made by his wife.

On September 29th, 1943, George Howard sold to Mrs. William Boorstein, the estranged wife of the appellant, a fur coat for $385, taking a one-third down payment, leaving a balance of $256.67. A month later Howard billed the appellant' for the coat and several dresses and instituted suit for collection. Appellant, having been informed of the part payment, settled the claim for $150. Four months later he found a copy of the original invoice for the coat, addressed to Mrs. Boorstein, on which was written, “Balance to be paid in cash.” Interpreting this to mean the coat was not purchased on his credit, he'demanded the return of the $150, for which sum this action was brought. The District Court, sitting without a jury entered judgment for the respondent.

The record falls far short of establishing fraud. The sales of clothing were made to appellant’s wife, for which he made payment in settlement of' the amount due. There was no misrepresentation of fact which justifies interference with that settlement or the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wachenfeld, J.

Appellant, alleging fraud, seeks to re-

dover $150 paid to settle a claim arising from purchase of clothing made by his wife.

On September 29th, 1943, George Howard sold to Mrs. William Boorstein, the estranged wife of the appellant, a fur coat for $385, taking a one-third down payment, leaving a balance of $256.67. A month later Howard billed the appellant' for the coat and several dresses and instituted suit for collection. Appellant, having been informed of the part payment, settled the claim for $150. Four months later he found a copy of the original invoice for the coat, addressed to Mrs. Boorstein, on which was written, “Balance to be paid in cash.” Interpreting this to mean the coat was not purchased on his credit, he'demanded the return of the $150, for which sum this action was brought. The District Court, sitting without a jury entered judgment for the respondent.

The record falls far short of establishing fraud. The sales of clothing were made to appellant’s wife, for which he made payment in settlement of' the amount due. There was no misrepresentation of fact which justifies interference with that settlement or the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.2d 427, 136 N.J.L. 359, 1948 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boorstein-v-howard-nj-1948.