Herrmann v. Koref

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Herrmann v. Koref

47 Misc. 94, 93 N.Y.S. 488

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 47 Misc. 94 (Herrmann v. Koref) 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

Herrmann v. Koref, 47 Misc. 94, 93 N.Y.S. 488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Scott, J.

The defendant, sued for a balance of $100, pleaded payment. In order to prove his defense he sought to show that a sum originally paid hy him to Henry Herrmann personally on another transaction had hy agreement been applied to the payment of his indebtedness to the firm. Hpon this question the evidence, such as it was, was conflicting. At the close of the evidence both sides moved. for the • direction of a verdict. Defendant’s motion was denied. Before any verdict was directed or recorded, plaintiffs asked to go to the jury upon the question of the application.of the check for $100 given by defendant to plaintiffs, which was the only question in the case. This was denied and a verdict directed in favor of defendant. This was error. The request to go.to the jury was season[95]*95ably made and should have been granted. Eldredge v. Matthews, 93 App. Div. 356; Cullinan v. Furthmann, 70 id. 110.

Leventbitt and Gbeenbaum, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.

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

Scott, J.

The defendant, sued for a balance of $100, pleaded payment. In order to prove his defense he sought to show that a sum originally paid hy him to Henry Herrmann personally on another transaction had hy agreement been applied to the payment of his indebtedness to the firm. Hpon this question the evidence, such as it was, was conflicting. At the close of the evidence both sides moved. for the • direction of a verdict. Defendant’s motion was denied. Before any verdict was directed or recorded, plaintiffs asked to go to the jury upon the question of the application.of the check for $100 given by defendant to plaintiffs, which was the only question in the case. This was denied and a verdict directed in favor of defendant. This was error. The request to go.to the jury was season[95]*95ably made and should have been granted. Eldredge v. Matthews, 93 App. Div. 356; Cullinan v. Furthmann, 70 id. 110.

Leventbitt and Gbeenbaum, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 Misc. 94, 93 N.Y.S. 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrmann-v-koref-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack