McNamara v. Kranich & Bach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McNamara v. Kranich & Bach

159 A.D. 915, 144 N.Y.S. 1127

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 159 A.D. 915 (McNamara v. Kranich & Bach) 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

McNamara v. Kranich & Bach, 159 A.D. 915, 144 N.Y.S. 1127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Without considering whether the action in replevin is a defense to the present action, it is decided that the evidence preponderatingly shows that the defendant, induced thereto by the plaintiff, did not sell the piano after thirty days and within sixty days of the taking thereof, whereby at the time this action was begun there was an existing waiver by the plaintiff of the sale of the property. In such view, finding of fact XIV is against the weight of the evidence. That finding is “ that the plaintiff did not enter into an agreement with the defendant waiving the sale of the property at public auction.” Judgment reversed, upon the law and the facts, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ., concurred.

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

Without considering whether the action in replevin is a defense to the present action, it is decided that the evidence preponderatingly shows that the defendant, induced thereto by the plaintiff, did not sell the piano after thirty days and within sixty days of the taking thereof, whereby at the time this action was begun there was an existing waiver by the plaintiff of the sale of the property. In such view, finding of fact XIV is against the weight of the evidence. That finding is “ that the plaintiff did not enter into an agreement with the defendant waiving the sale of the property at public auction.” Judgment reversed, upon the law and the facts, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D. 915, 144 N.Y.S. 1127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnamara-v-kranich-bach-nyappdiv-1913.