Mawhinney v. Millbrook Woolen Mills, Inc.

188 A.D. 971
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 15, 1919
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 A.D. 971 (Mawhinney v. Millbrook Woolen Mills, 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
Mawhinney v. Millbrook Woolen Mills, Inc., 188 A.D. 971 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of Mr. Justice Kelby at Special Term. (Reported in 105 Misc. Rep. 99.) It seems to us, however, that the trial justice erred in formally granting plaintiff’s motion to strike out the defenses and the evidence which had been received to sustain them. We conclude that with the amendment thereto granted at the trial the third defense was sufficiently pleaded, and that if the trial court had credited defendant’s evidence that plaintiff extended defendant’s time for delivery past November twenty-fourth, a finding sustaining that defense would have been warranted; but it appears from the opinion that the trial justice nevertheless did consider and weigh that evidence, and the same has been fully discussed here by counsel. Therefore, we restore that defense and evidence, and ourselves make the same findings and conclusions which the trial court made. Present — Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Kelly and Jaycox, JJ. Order to be settled on notice before Mr. Justice Mills.

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

Related

Crown Embroidery Works v. Gordon
190 A.D. 472 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 A.D. 971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mawhinney-v-millbrook-woolen-mills-inc-nyappdiv-1919.