Dorfman Fur Mfg. Co. v. Sally's Dress Shop

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Dorfman Fur Mfg. Co. v. Sally's Dress Shop

9 R.I. Dec. 72

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 14, 1932

DocketNo. 83560

StatusPublished

This text of 9 R.I. Dec. 72 (Dorfman Fur Mfg. Co. v. Sally's Dress Shop) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dorfman Fur Mfg. Co. v. Sally's Dress Shop, 9 R.I. Dec. 72 (R.I. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

POULIOT, J.

This cause is before the Court on defendants’ motion for a new trial, on the usual grounds, after a jury had returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $166.71.

In the month of November, 1929, the defendants called on the plaintiff at its place of business in New York and bought nine coats for $275. The plaintiff testified this was a cash transaction and that the defendants were to send a check the following day. The defendants claim it was a charge sale, that some repairs were to be made to the garments and that they were to be sent on later, but that the coats arrived in Providence the day following the sale in New York and in the same condition as they had been when inspected.

The defendants kept the coats some time and on December 31st sent back four coats' having a value of $165, which the plaintiff stated were received by an employee without authority.

The defendants, as a part of their pleading in this suit, filed a plea in set-off in the sum of $135, which was apparently allowed by the jury.

The evidence, on both sides, was very unsatisfactory. The plaintiff’s evidence, however, was more impressive than that of the defendants and the Court feels that the jury was justified, by reason of the atmosphere surrounding the whole case, in arriving at. the conclusion that the plaintiff had substantiated its claim of a cash sale, and, furthermore, that the defendants were entitled to a set-off.

The Court approves the verdict as one which is supported not only by the evidence but also by common sense.

Motion for new trial denied.

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

POULIOT, J.

This cause is before the Court on defendants’ motion for a new trial, on the usual grounds, after a jury had returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $166.71.

In the month of November, 1929, the defendants called on the plaintiff at its place of business in New York and bought nine coats for $275. The plaintiff testified this was a cash transaction and that the defendants were to send a check the following day. The defendants claim it was a charge sale, that some repairs were to be made to the garments and that they were to be sent on later, but that the coats arrived in Providence the day following the sale in New York and in the same condition as they had been when inspected.

The defendants kept the coats some time and on December 31st sent back four coats' having a value of $165, which the plaintiff stated were received by an employee without authority.

The defendants, as a part of their pleading in this suit, filed a plea in set-off in the sum of $135, which was apparently allowed by the jury.

The evidence, on both sides, was very unsatisfactory. The plaintiff’s evidence, however, was more impressive than that of the defendants and the Court feels that the jury was justified, by reason of the atmosphere surrounding the whole case, in arriving at. the conclusion that the plaintiff had substantiated its claim of a cash sale, and, furthermore, that the defendants were entitled to a set-off.

The Court approves the verdict as one which is supported not only by the evidence but also by common sense.

Motion for new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 R.I. Dec. 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorfman-fur-mfg-co-v-sallys-dress-shop-risuperct-1932.