Hutchinson v. . Doyle

New York Court of Appeals

Hutchinson v. . Doyle

62 N.E. 1100, 170 N.Y. 577, 1902 N.Y. LEXIS 1120

DecidedFebruary 25, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 62 N.E. 1100 (Hutchinson v. . Doyle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hutchinson v. . Doyle, 62 N.E. 1100, 170 N.Y. 577, 1902 N.Y. LEXIS 1120 (N.Y. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Cullen, J.

The plaintiffs’ contract required of them a delivery of the particular goods sold to Brown at Pittsford and compliance with their warranty that all the goods should be of the quality of those inspected and accepted by Brown. While no witnesses for the defendants contradicted the testimony of the plaintiffs’ employees, that the goods sold were the goods shipped to the defendants, the evidence on their behalf tended to show that the condition of the goods when received in Rochester was so different from that of the goods inspected hy Brown in Pittsford as to raise an issue of fact both as to the identity of the goods and breach of the warranty. The case was, therefore, for the jury.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Parker, Ch. J., Bartlett, Haight, Martin, Yann and Werner, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Cullen, J.

The plaintiffs’ contract required of them a delivery of the particular goods sold to Brown at Pittsford and compliance with their warranty that all the goods should be of the quality of those inspected and accepted by Brown. While no witnesses for the defendants contradicted the testimony of the plaintiffs’ employees, that the goods sold were the goods shipped to the defendants, the evidence on their behalf tended to show that the condition of the goods when received in Rochester was so different from that of the goods inspected hy Brown in Pittsford as to raise an issue of fact both as to the identity of the goods and breach of the warranty. The case was, therefore, for the jury.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Parker, Ch. J., Bartlett, Haight, Martin, Yann and Werner, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 N.E. 1100, 170 N.Y. 577, 1902 N.Y. LEXIS 1120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchinson-v-doyle-ny-1902.