Brittingham v. S. B. Penick & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brittingham v. S. B. Penick & Co.

202 A.D. 761

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1922

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D. 761 (Brittingham v. S. B. Penick & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brittingham v. S. B. Penick & Co., 202 A.D. 761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. The question whether the plaintiff accepted the order of the defendant for bayberry bark and complied with the conditions of the order is, at the most, a question of fact upon the evidence, and the evidence of the conversation over the telephone, excluded by the court over defendant’s objection and exception, is not of sufficient materiality to justify review by the Appellate Division. (Handy v. Butler, 183 App. Div 359.)

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

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. The question whether the plaintiff accepted the order of the defendant for bayberry bark and complied with the conditions of the order is, at the most, a question of fact upon the evidence, and the evidence of the conversation over the telephone, excluded by the court over defendant’s objection and exception, is not of sufficient materiality to justify review by the Appellate Division. (Handy v. Butler, 183 App. Div 359.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D. 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brittingham-v-s-b-penick-co-nyappdiv-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack