Flah & Co. v. Dudley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flah & Co. v. Dudley

259 A.D. 1054, 20 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7942

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

DecidedJune 5, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 1054 (Flah & Co. v. Dudley) 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

Flah & Co. v. Dudley, 259 A.D. 1054, 20 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7942 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of Onondaga County Court and judgment of Syracuse Municipal Court reversed on the facts and a new trial granted in the Municipal Court, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: We think the verdict for the plaintiff was against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff’s letter of April 21, 1938, to Miss Dudley corroborates the defendant’s contention that the coat was not returned for storage as claimed by the plaintiff and that the coat was not Persian lamb as represented. We also think the trial court erred in holding as matter of law that the defendant had accepted the coat. (See Angerosa v. White Company, 248 App. Div. 425, 434; affd., 275 N. Y. 524.) All concur, except Taylor and MeCurn, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance. (The order of the Onondaga County Court affirms a judgment of the Syracuse Municipal Court in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover the value of goods sold and delivered.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.

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

Order of Onondaga County Court and judgment of Syracuse Municipal Court reversed on the facts and a new trial granted in the Municipal Court, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: We think the verdict for the plaintiff was against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff’s letter of April 21, 1938, to Miss Dudley corroborates the defendant’s contention that the coat was not returned for storage as claimed by the plaintiff and that the coat was not Persian lamb as represented. We also think the trial court erred in holding as matter of law that the defendant had accepted the coat. (See Angerosa v. White Company, 248 App. Div. 425, 434; affd., 275 N. Y. 524.) All concur, except Taylor and MeCurn, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance. (The order of the Onondaga County Court affirms a judgment of the Syracuse Municipal Court in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover the value of goods sold and delivered.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 1054, 20 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flah-co-v-dudley-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack