Grushka v. Bentwood Products Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Grushka v. Bentwood Products Corp.

123 Misc. 927, 206 N.Y.S. 714, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1256

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 13, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 123 Misc. 927 (Grushka v. Bentwood Products Corp.) 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

Grushka v. Bentwood Products Corp., 123 Misc. 927, 206 N.Y.S. 714, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On the day (May twenty-eighth) when the inquest was taken the action had been placed on the calendar with a preference following two or three prior adjournments, the last of which was at the defendant’s request upon the ground of the absence in Europe of a material witness. When the case was called for trial on May twenty-eighth an affidavit and certificate were offered by the defendant from which it appeared that the president of the defendant, and its principal witness, had suffered a physical breakdown which had necessitated his leaving the city for a week or two under doctor’s orders. The inquest was, nevertheless, taken.

Respondent does not apparently contest the right of defendant to an adjournment under these circumstances, but claims that there is no defense to the action, which is for goods sold and delivered. It appears from defendant’s affidavits that it claims that the goods were ordered by another concern, and it produced a copy of a statement claimed to be signed by plaintiff in which appear the words above a statement of the account “ sold to Eastern Trading Agency, [928]*928Inc.,” which is the concern that defendant claims ordered the goods. Plaintiff, in a replying affidavit, says that this paper, if in existence, is a forgery. This paper if it shall be proved to have been signed by the plaintiff will be submitted by defendant and clearly entitles it to defend.

Order reversed, judgment vacated and case set for trial, with ten dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Guy, Bijur and Mullan, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

On the day (May twenty-eighth) when the inquest was taken the action had been placed on the calendar with a preference following two or three prior adjournments, the last of which was at the defendant’s request upon the ground of the absence in Europe of a material witness. When the case was called for trial on May twenty-eighth an affidavit and certificate were offered by the defendant from which it appeared that the president of the defendant, and its principal witness, had suffered a physical breakdown which had necessitated his leaving the city for a week or two under doctor’s orders. The inquest was, nevertheless, taken.

Respondent does not apparently contest the right of defendant to an adjournment under these circumstances, but claims that there is no defense to the action, which is for goods sold and delivered. It appears from defendant’s affidavits that it claims that the goods were ordered by another concern, and it produced a copy of a statement claimed to be signed by plaintiff in which appear the words above a statement of the account “ sold to Eastern Trading Agency, [928]*928Inc.,” which is the concern that defendant claims ordered the goods. Plaintiff, in a replying affidavit, says that this paper, if in existence, is a forgery. This paper if it shall be proved to have been signed by the plaintiff will be submitted by defendant and clearly entitles it to defend.

Order reversed, judgment vacated and case set for trial, with ten dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Guy, Bijur and Mullan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 Misc. 927, 206 N.Y.S. 714, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grushka-v-bentwood-products-corp-nyappterm-1924.