Marks Bros. v. Zawatsky

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Marks Bros. v. Zawatsky

5 R.I. Dec. 108

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 17, 1929

DocketNo. 69868

StatusPublished

This text of 5 R.I. Dec. 108 (Marks Bros. v. Zawatsky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marks Bros. v. Zawatsky, 5 R.I. Dec. 108 (R.I. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

CAPOTOSTO, I.

The plaintiff shipped from New York a quantity of plate glass to the defendant in Providence. The goods were received, acknowledged and part payment made on the account. When financial difficulties beset the defendant, complaints about the shipment began to multiply with astonishing rapidity.

The defendant’s -explanations were more amusing than convincing. He excused the non production of a bill by saying that he had not seen it after burglars had blown his safe, although lie would not admit that he kept his bills in such a place of comparative safety. While he could not remember what had become of certain specified glass, yet he testified that it might have been cut and used in smaller pieces; asked why he had not returned the defective glass, he stated as one of his reasons that the truck, which he used in doing this work, was not in “good humor.”

The plaintiff brought suit for a balance of $1032.91. The jury returned a verdict for $955.32 and interest, amounting in all to $1085.79. The defendant wants a new trial. The Court can find no fault with his wish, but deems it inadvisable to further delay the collection of a just claim until the burglars restore the lost bill or the truck regains its ordinary “good humor.”

Motion for new trial denied.

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

CAPOTOSTO, I.

The plaintiff shipped from New York a quantity of plate glass to the defendant in Providence. The goods were received, acknowledged and part payment made on the account. When financial difficulties beset the defendant, complaints about the shipment began to multiply with astonishing rapidity.

The defendant’s -explanations were more amusing than convincing. He excused the non production of a bill by saying that he had not seen it after burglars had blown his safe, although lie would not admit that he kept his bills in such a place of comparative safety. While he could not remember what had become of certain specified glass, yet he testified that it might have been cut and used in smaller pieces; asked why he had not returned the defective glass, he stated as one of his reasons that the truck, which he used in doing this work, was not in “good humor.”

The plaintiff brought suit for a balance of $1032.91. The jury returned a verdict for $955.32 and interest, amounting in all to $1085.79. The defendant wants a new trial. The Court can find no fault with his wish, but deems it inadvisable to further delay the collection of a just claim until the burglars restore the lost bill or the truck regains its ordinary “good humor.”

Motion for new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 R.I. Dec. 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marks-bros-v-zawatsky-risuperct-1929.