Giovanniello v. Horton

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Giovanniello v. Horton

101 N.Y.S. 20

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 14, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 101 N.Y.S. 20 (Giovanniello v. Horton) 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

Giovanniello v. Horton, 101 N.Y.S. 20 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant upon cross-examination testified, in substance, that she owed plaintiff more than the sum paid into court. She testified that she owed plaintiff $11, $16, $12.10, $14, and $12, respectively, for the Shields, Dougherty, Wilkeshire, Newberry, and Hoffman coats, and other sums for second fittings. The tender was less than the aggregate of these amounts. The judgment should, therefore, not have been for defendant.

Upon the whole case, the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant upon cross-examination testified, in substance, that she owed plaintiff more than the sum paid into court. She testified that she owed plaintiff $11, $16, $12.10, $14, and $12, respectively, for the Shields, Dougherty, Wilkeshire, Newberry, and Hoffman coats, and other sums for second fittings. The tender was less than the aggregate of these amounts. The judgment should, therefore, not have been for defendant.

Upon the whole case, the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 N.Y.S. 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giovanniello-v-horton-nyappterm-1906.