J. C. Bogert Co. v. Schmidt

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

J. C. Bogert Co. v. Schmidt

101 N.Y.S. 580

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 11, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 101 N.Y.S. 580 (J. C. Bogert Co. v. Schmidt) 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

J. C. Bogert Co. v. Schmidt, 101 N.Y.S. 580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The action is for the breach of two contracts for the purchase of flour. The defense is that plaintiff failed to deliver the flour purchased according to contract. The justice found for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

The sole ground of the appeal is that the judgment is against the weight of evidence. The flour was to be delivered by installments. It is conceded that defendant paid for all that was delivered. The defendant refused to accept further deliveries on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with the conditions of the contracts with respect to deliveries. The issue presented was as to defendant’s claim that he was justified in so refusing to accept the deliveries. The defendant testified that plaintiff did not deliver 100 barrels a month, as agreed upon, and that he was obliged to buy other flour elsewhere. There is a sharp conflict of proof, but. as the justice found for the defendant the Appellate Court is reluctant to disturb his conclusion,'although under the evidence he might well have found for the plaintiff.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The action is for the breach of two contracts for the purchase of flour. The defense is that plaintiff failed to deliver the flour purchased according to contract. The justice found for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

The sole ground of the appeal is that the judgment is against the weight of evidence. The flour was to be delivered by installments. It is conceded that defendant paid for all that was delivered. The defendant refused to accept further deliveries on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with the conditions of the contracts with respect to deliveries. The issue presented was as to defendant’s claim that he was justified in so refusing to accept the deliveries. The defendant testified that plaintiff did not deliver 100 barrels a month, as agreed upon, and that he was obliged to buy other flour elsewhere. There is a sharp conflict of proof, but. as the justice found for the defendant the Appellate Court is reluctant to disturb his conclusion,'although under the evidence he might well have found for the plaintiff.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 N.Y.S. 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-c-bogert-co-v-schmidt-nyappterm-1906.