Buyer v. Mercury Technical Cloth & Felt Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buyer v. Mercury Technical Cloth & Felt Corp.

276 A.D.2d 755

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 755 (Buyer v. Mercury Technical Cloth & Felt Corp.) 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

Buyer v. Mercury Technical Cloth & Felt Corp., 276 A.D.2d 755 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ.; Glennon and Dore, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum: The trial court practically directed a verdict in plaintiff’s favor telling the jury in effect that there was an available market and the market price for the merchandise in question. Plaintiff’s proof of that was conclusory. The measure of plaintiff’s damages was not, as the court charged, the “ profit ” that he would have realized but the difference between the contract price and the market price and in this respect the court’s charge was erroneous. In that state of the record the judgment in plaintiff’s favor entered on the jury’s verdict should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ.; Glennon and Dore, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum: The trial court practically directed a verdict in plaintiff’s favor telling the jury in effect that there was an available market and the market price for the merchandise in question. Plaintiff’s proof of that was conclusory. The measure of plaintiff’s damages was not, as the court charged, the “ profit ” that he would have realized but the difference between the contract price and the market price and in this respect the court’s charge was erroneous. In that state of the record the judgment in plaintiff’s favor entered on the jury’s verdict should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buyer-v-mercury-technical-cloth-felt-corp-nyappdiv-1949.