Hanshaft v. Mesa

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hanshaft v. Mesa

148 N.Y.S. 149

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 18, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 148 N.Y.S. 149 (Hanshaft v. Mesa) 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

Hanshaft v. Mesa, 148 N.Y.S. 149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs sued for the purchase price of some machinery, which had been installed in an apartment owned by the defendant corporation. The appellant had contracted for its installation with the defendant Mesa. After the bulk of the plant had been delivered at appellant’s apartment house, plaintiff called and had an interview with Borchardt, and there claims to have exhibited to Borchardt, or at least to have notified him of the existence of, a conditional bill of sale from plaintiff to Mesa. If this were all, the judgment would be justified as matter of law; but plaintiffs went further, and testified that Borchardt “was to keep the plant with the understanding that we were to get our money as soon as he got these people to fix up the plant,” etc. Thus plaintiffs, on their own case, established a contract of sale between themselves and the appellant, and, the action being predicated' distinctly on conversion, the complaint should have been dismissed-

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs sued for the purchase price of some machinery, which had been installed in an apartment owned by the defendant corporation. The appellant had contracted for its installation with the defendant Mesa. After the bulk of the plant had been delivered at appellant’s apartment house, plaintiff called and had an interview with Borchardt, and there claims to have exhibited to Borchardt, or at least to have notified him of the existence of, a conditional bill of sale from plaintiff to Mesa. If this were all, the judgment would be justified as matter of law; but plaintiffs went further, and testified that Borchardt “was to keep the plant with the understanding that we were to get our money as soon as he got these people to fix up the plant,” etc. Thus plaintiffs, on their own case, established a contract of sale between themselves and the appellant, and, the action being predicated' distinctly on conversion, the complaint should have been dismissed-

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 N.Y.S. 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanshaft-v-mesa-nyappterm-1914.