Machson v. Syrop

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Machson v. Syrop

91 N.Y.S. 12

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 7, 1904·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The evidence amply supports the finding that the sale of the store Was conditional ..pon its being demonstrated that the gross receipts were $100 a day, and the plaintiffs were entitled to a return of the sum deposited upon this conditional agreement, in view of the actual receipts. There is nothing improbable in this agreement, since the profit upon a gross business of $100 a day was not necessarily excessive of what should ordinarily be derived from an investment of $2,100 in the business of personally conducting a store. The credibility of the witnesses was for the justice to determine, and there is nothing to infirm his conclusion upon this record.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The evidence amply supports the finding that the sale of the store Was conditional ..pon its being demonstrated that the gross receipts were $100 a day, and the plaintiffs were entitled to a return of the sum deposited upon this conditional agreement, in view of the actual receipts. There is nothing improbable in this agreement, since the profit upon a gross business of $100 a day was not necessarily excessive of what should ordinarily be derived from an investment of $2,100 in the business of personally conducting a store. The credibility of the witnesses was for the justice to determine, and there is nothing to infirm his conclusion upon this record.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Machson v. Syrop, 91 N.Y.S. 12 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

91 N.Y.S. 12 (Machson v. Syrop) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.