Greenberg v. Eisenberg

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenberg v. Eisenberg

154 N.Y.S. 119

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 28, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 N.Y.S. 119 (Greenberg v. Eisenberg) 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

Greenberg v. Eisenberg, 154 N.Y.S. 119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sued for the unpaid balance ($66.51) of the reasonable value of goods sold to defendant from September, 1913, to February, 1914, amounting to $89.01. The value and delivery having been conceded, defendant took the affirmative on the defense of payment.

[1,2] On this defense the only evidence submitted was a check dated May 9, 1914, made by defendant to the order of plaintiff for $25, on which defendant had written “In full to date,” and plaintiff’s brother and partner had, after he received it, written after the word “date,” “August 1, 1913.” Of course, the payment of the smaller amount for the larger sum due would not be an accord and satisfaction, in the absence of a dispute; and not only is there no evidence of dispute, but accord and satisfaction was not pleaded, nor is it now claimed on this appeal to have existed. It is difficult, therefore, to see what proof of payment was made by defendant. The mere writing of the words “In full to date” on the check, and the fact that plaintiff’s representative observed them, can scarcely be regarded as proof of payment. But, if that could be treated as some admission of payment, it is offset by the fact that the defendant testified that he noticed the words “August 1, 1913,” after the check came back to him from the bank.

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

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

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sued for the unpaid balance ($66.51) of the reasonable value of goods sold to defendant from September, 1913, to February, 1914, amounting to $89.01. The value and delivery having been conceded, defendant took the affirmative on the defense of payment.

[1,2] On this defense the only evidence submitted was a check dated May 9, 1914, made by defendant to the order of plaintiff for $25, on which defendant had written “In full to date,” and plaintiff’s brother and partner had, after he received it, written after the word “date,” “August 1, 1913.” Of course, the payment of the smaller amount for the larger sum due would not be an accord and satisfaction, in the absence of a dispute; and not only is there no evidence of dispute, but accord and satisfaction was not pleaded, nor is it now claimed on this appeal to have existed. It is difficult, therefore, to see what proof of payment was made by defendant. The mere writing of the words “In full to date” on the check, and the fact that plaintiff’s representative observed them, can scarcely be regarded as proof of payment. But, if that could be treated as some admission of payment, it is offset by the fact that the defendant testified that he noticed the words “August 1, 1913,” after the check came back to him from the bank.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 N.Y.S. 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenberg-v-eisenberg-nyappterm-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack