Muller v. Greenwald

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Muller v. Greenwald

94 N.Y.S. 427

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 94 N.Y.S. 427 (Muller v. Greenwald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Muller v. Greenwald, 94 N.Y.S. 427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, P. J.

This action was for goods sold and delivered, and the complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiffs’ case upon the tria.1 judge’s own motion. It was shown upon the trial that the defendant was the owner of certain premises, and one Dixon was his agent. Dixon had authority to order coal for the use of the house, and- had authorized the janitress to give receipts for such coal when delivered. Dixon ordered coal of the plaintiffs, [428]*428and upon delivery thereof the janitress gave receipts therefor, which were in evidence. The price and amount of coal were also shown. Upon the testimony, the plaintiffs should have had a judgment.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.

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

SCOTT, P. J.

This action was for goods sold and delivered, and the complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiffs’ case upon the tria.1 judge’s own motion. It was shown upon the trial that the defendant was the owner of certain premises, and one Dixon was his agent. Dixon had authority to order coal for the use of the house, and- had authorized the janitress to give receipts for such coal when delivered. Dixon ordered coal of the plaintiffs, [428]*428and upon delivery thereof the janitress gave receipts therefor, which were in evidence. The price and amount of coal were also shown. Upon the testimony, the plaintiffs should have had a judgment.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 N.Y.S. 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muller-v-greenwald-nyappterm-1905.