Cooper Griffin Co. v. Wiegand

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Cooper Griffin Co. v. Wiegand

123 N.Y.S. 947

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 24, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 123 N.Y.S. 947 (Cooper Griffin Co. v. Wiegand) 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

Cooper Griffin Co. v. Wiegand, 123 N.Y.S. 947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff appellant sued defendant for goods sold and delivered pursuant to a written contract. The contract provided in terms that all agreements of both parties to the contract were stated therein, that no change of terms or conditions should bind either party [948]*948Unless indorsed on the contract, and, finally, that the authority of the salesman was limited to taking orders on the printed form.

Over plaintiff’s objection and exception, evidence was admitted ás to promises made by the salesman to furnish a showcase in addition ■to the goods, for which error alone the judgment must be reversed. The person who is claimed to have made the promise is not even identified by defendant, and, of course, his authority is not proven.

A number of exceptions were taken to the charge of the court and to refusals to charge. Some of these exceptions were well taken, and would in themselves require a reversal.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff appellant sued defendant for goods sold and delivered pursuant to a written contract. The contract provided in terms that all agreements of both parties to the contract were stated therein, that no change of terms or conditions should bind either party [948]*948Unless indorsed on the contract, and, finally, that the authority of the salesman was limited to taking orders on the printed form.

Over plaintiff’s objection and exception, evidence was admitted ás to promises made by the salesman to furnish a showcase in addition ■to the goods, for which error alone the judgment must be reversed. The person who is claimed to have made the promise is not even identified by defendant, and, of course, his authority is not proven.

A number of exceptions were taken to the charge of the court and to refusals to charge. Some of these exceptions were well taken, and would in themselves require a reversal.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 N.Y.S. 947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-griffin-co-v-wiegand-nyappterm-1910.