Dayton Metal Products Co. v. American Steel & Wire Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dayton Metal Products Co. v. American Steel & Wire Co.

272 A.D.2d 1049

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 1049 (Dayton Metal Products Co. v. American Steel & Wire 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

Dayton Metal Products Co. v. American Steel & Wire Co., 272 A.D.2d 1049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Although the plaintiff insists that a warranty of fitness of the cable for the purpose of eleetrogalvanizing was made on May 15, 1943, neither the defendant’s letter of May 19, 1943, quoting its price and terms nor the plaintiff’s letter of June 15, 1943, accepting such terms and placing an order for 150,000 feet of the cable make any reference to the alleged warranty. After an examination of the record we have concluded that the trial court was justified in setting aside the verdict, of the jury as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. However, in view of the court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss, made at the end of the entire case, the trial court in setting aside the jury’s verdict should have ordered a new trial at that time instead of directing the dismissal of the complaint.

The determination of the Appellate Term, so far as appealed from, should be modified by granting a new trial, and as so modified affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Term to abide the event.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Determination of the Appellate Term, so far as appealed from, unanimously modified by granting a new trial and as so modified affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Term to abide the event. Settle order on notice.

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

Per Curiam.

Although the plaintiff insists that a warranty of fitness of the cable for the purpose of eleetrogalvanizing was made on May 15, 1943, neither the defendant’s letter of May 19, 1943, quoting its price and terms nor the plaintiff’s letter of June 15, 1943, accepting such terms and placing an order for 150,000 feet of the cable make any reference to the alleged warranty. After an examination of the record we have concluded that the trial court was justified in setting aside the verdict, of the jury as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. However, in view of the court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss, made at the end of the entire case, the trial court in setting aside the jury’s verdict should have ordered a new trial at that time instead of directing the dismissal of the complaint.

The determination of the Appellate Term, so far as appealed from, should be modified by granting a new trial, and as so modified affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Term to abide the event.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Determination of the Appellate Term, so far as appealed from, unanimously modified by granting a new trial and as so modified affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Term to abide the event. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 1049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dayton-metal-products-co-v-american-steel-wire-co-nyappdiv-1947.