Burkhard v. George Hagemeyer & Sons' Lumber Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Burkhard v. George Hagemeyer & Sons' Lumber Co.

23 Misc. 167, 50 N.Y.S. 667

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Misc. 167 (Burkhard v. George Hagemeyer & Sons' Lumber Co.) 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

Burkhard v. George Hagemeyer & Sons' Lumber Co., 23 Misc. 167, 50 N.Y.S. 667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Giegerich, J.

This action was brought to recover the sum of $172.50, claimed to be due plaintiff for horses, harness and drivers furnished to the defendant, at its request, during the month of April, 1897, The issues in the action were joined by written complaint and answer, the latter containing a general denial. The substantial question of fact litigated upon the trial was, whether or not the horses were furnished to the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that they were, while the defendant denies having hired or used them, insisting that the same were furnished to one August K. Kaufold upon his request. There was sufficient evidence in the case to support a finding either way, and the justice having found for the plaintiff upon a conflict of evidence, we should not disturb his conclusion. Lynes v. Hickey, 4 Misc. Rep. 522.

We have examined with great care the exceptions taken at the trial to rulings respecting the admissibility of evidence and fail to discover the existence of any substantial error which would require the reversal of the judgment.

The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Beekmah, P. J., and Gildersleeve, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Giegerich, J.

This action was brought to recover the sum of $172.50, claimed to be due plaintiff for horses, harness and drivers furnished to the defendant, at its request, during the month of April, 1897, The issues in the action were joined by written complaint and answer, the latter containing a general denial. The substantial question of fact litigated upon the trial was, whether or not the horses were furnished to the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that they were, while the defendant denies having hired or used them, insisting that the same were furnished to one August K. Kaufold upon his request. There was sufficient evidence in the case to support a finding either way, and the justice having found for the plaintiff upon a conflict of evidence, we should not disturb his conclusion. Lynes v. Hickey, 4 Misc. Rep. 522.

We have examined with great care the exceptions taken at the trial to rulings respecting the admissibility of evidence and fail to discover the existence of any substantial error which would require the reversal of the judgment.

The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Beekmah, P. J., and Gildersleeve, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Misc. 167, 50 N.Y.S. 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burkhard-v-george-hagemeyer-sons-lumber-co-nyappterm-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack