Krug v. G. Elias & Brother, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krug v. G. Elias & Brother, Inc.

217 A.D. 783

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 217 A.D. 783 (Krug v. G. Elias & Brother, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Krug v. G. Elias & Brother, Inc., 217 A.D. 783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The contract was for the sale of rough gunstocks known to be defective in quality. It was in writing and a sample was furnished. The defendant subsequent to the making of the contract examined the stock on several occasions, obtained other samples and took into its possession a total of 148. There was evidence from which the jury might have found that there were others of the same general shape and quality to enable plaintiff to make complete delivery of the 7,000 defendant agreed to purchase, and that as to minor variances there had been waiver of objections. (Littlejohn v. Shaw, 159 N. Y. 188.) it was, therefore, error for the court to direct a verdict and the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Present — Hubbs, P. J., Davis, Sears, Crouch and Taylor, JJ. All concur. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

The contract was for the sale of rough gunstocks known to be defective in quality. It was in writing and a sample was furnished. The defendant subsequent to the making of the contract examined the stock on several occasions, obtained other samples and took into its possession a total of 148. There was evidence from which the jury might have found that there were others of the same general shape and quality to enable plaintiff to make complete delivery of the 7,000 defendant agreed to purchase, and that as to minor variances there had been waiver of objections. (Littlejohn v. Shaw, 159 N. Y. 188.) it was, therefore, error for the court to direct a verdict and the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Present — Hubbs, P. J., Davis, Sears, Crouch and Taylor, JJ. All concur. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D. 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krug-v-g-elias-brother-inc-nyappdiv-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack