Ginsburg v. Erlich

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ginsburg v. Erlich

125 N.Y.S. 469

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 11, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 125 N.Y.S. 469 (Ginsburg v. Erlich) 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

Ginsburg v. Erlich, 125 N.Y.S. 469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

The testimony in this case is so vague and confused as to be almost unintelligible. It seems to show that defendants once sold goods to plaintiff during a number of years; that plaintiff claims to have returned some of these goods to defendants, and now seeks to hold them in respect of the goods returned as for “goods sold and delivered.” There is some evidence that a- man by the name of Safir had some conversation with one of the defendants about returning goods, and that this particular defendant said he might do so. Safir’s authority to act for the plaintiff is probably intended to be indicated by the statement that he was one of the managers of her store. But, apart from the vagueness of this supposed arrangement, there was no consideration for defendants’ promise. It is not just to predicate a - recovery upon," or to assume that a cause of action can be proved by, evidence of the uncertain and unintelligible character disclosed in this record. Alpern v. Hirsch, 56 Misc. Rep. 457, 107 N. Y. Supp. 8.

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

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

BIJUR, J.

The testimony in this case is so vague and confused as to be almost unintelligible. It seems to show that defendants once sold goods to plaintiff during a number of years; that plaintiff claims to have returned some of these goods to defendants, and now seeks to hold them in respect of the goods returned as for “goods sold and delivered.” There is some evidence that a- man by the name of Safir had some conversation with one of the defendants about returning goods, and that this particular defendant said he might do so. Safir’s authority to act for the plaintiff is probably intended to be indicated by the statement that he was one of the managers of her store. But, apart from the vagueness of this supposed arrangement, there was no consideration for defendants’ promise. It is not just to predicate a - recovery upon," or to assume that a cause of action can be proved by, evidence of the uncertain and unintelligible character disclosed in this record. Alpern v. Hirsch, 56 Misc. Rep. 457, 107 N. Y. Supp. 8.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 N.Y.S. 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ginsburg-v-erlich-nyappterm-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack