Grouse v. Wolf

New York Court of Common Pleas

Grouse v. Wolf

24 N.Y.S. 703, 4 Misc. 535, 54 N.Y. St. Rep. 132

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedAugust 9, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 24 N.Y.S. 703 (Grouse v. Wolf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grouse v. Wolf, 24 N.Y.S. 703, 4 Misc. 535, 54 N.Y. St. Rep. 132 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

As we understand plaintiff’s testimony, it was to the effect that he sold and delivered a truck to defendant, which the latter accepted, and for which he agreed to pay the sum of $150; that, some time after the delivery and acceptance of the truck, defendant offered to return it, and did in fact take it to the premises of L. Ullman & Co., where plaintiff assumed possession, and subsequently again sold the truck to Cowperthwait & Co., for $60. This was all the evidence which was adduced on the trial, and a judgment for plaintiff thereon is clearly erroneous. It was competent for the parties to rescind the sale of the truck by mutual agreement to that effect, and that they did so is indisputable from plaintiff’s admission that the truck was returned to him, and that he thereupon sold it to others. After such rescission, plaintiff was not entitled to the purchase money which defendant had agreed to pay, and, if the latter had paid any sum on account, he was entitled to return thereof. Fulton v. Insurance Co., (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 23 N. Y. Supp. 598. 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

BISCHOFF, J.

As we understand plaintiff’s testimony, it was to the effect that he sold and delivered a truck to defendant, which the latter accepted, and for which he agreed to pay the sum of $150; that, some time after the delivery and acceptance of the truck, defendant offered to return it, and did in fact take it to the premises of L. Ullman & Co., where plaintiff assumed possession, and subsequently again sold the truck to Cowperthwait & Co., for $60. This was all the evidence which was adduced on the trial, and a judgment for plaintiff thereon is clearly erroneous. It was competent for the parties to rescind the sale of the truck by mutual agreement to that effect, and that they did so is indisputable from plaintiff’s admission that the truck was returned to him, and that he thereupon sold it to others. After such rescission, plaintiff was not entitled to the purchase money which defendant had agreed to pay, and, if the latter had paid any sum on account, he was entitled to return thereof. Fulton v. Insurance Co., (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 23 N. Y. Supp. 598. 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)

24 N.Y.S. 703, 4 Misc. 535, 54 N.Y. St. Rep. 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grouse-v-wolf-nyctcompl-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack