Neff v. Klopfer

New York Court of Common Pleas

Neff v. Klopfer

34 N.Y.S. 1144, 13 Misc. 270, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 877

DecidedJune 3, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 34 N.Y.S. 1144 (Neff v. Klopfer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neff v. Klopfer, 34 N.Y.S. 1144, 13 Misc. 270, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 877 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

BOOKSTAVER, J.

Plaintiff sued upon’an ■alleged contract with defendants, by which it was agreed that he should make and keep on hand for their use a certain number of paper boxes, for which the defendants dontributed certain labels. The defendants contend that they agreed to give their trade to the plaintiff, if he would keep a sufficient stock on hand to insure a prompt delivery of their orders. We think that this contention is upheld by the weight of the evidence. Not only did defendant testify that this was the agreement, but plaintiff’s principal witness, when asked, on cross-examination: “Q; The conversation you had, you say, was that if Neff and Co. would keep on hand a certain amount of these boxes IClopfer would give you orders? A. The prices being right!” And, further: “Q. Is that so? A. Yes, sir; I had that impression. Q. You don’t want to correct it? A. No.” It will, therefore, be seen that if plaintiff has any cause of action against the defendant it is for a breach of this contract, and not for “goods" manufactured and sold at defendants’ request.” The judgment must therefore be reversed, as against the weight of the evidence. Brown v. Sullivan, 1 Misc. Rep. 168, 20 N. Y. Supp. 634. Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

BOOKSTAVER, J.

Plaintiff sued upon’an ■alleged contract with defendants, by which it was agreed that he should make and keep on hand for their use a certain number of paper boxes, for which the defendants dontributed certain labels. The defendants contend that they agreed to give their trade to the plaintiff, if he would keep a sufficient stock on hand to insure a prompt delivery of their orders. We think that this contention is upheld by the weight of the evidence. Not only did defendant testify that this was the agreement, but plaintiff’s principal witness, when asked, on cross-examination: “Q; The conversation you had, you say, was that if Neff and Co. would keep on hand a certain amount of these boxes IClopfer would give you orders? A. The prices being right!” And, further: “Q. Is that so? A. Yes, sir; I had that impression. Q. You don’t want to correct it? A. No.” It will, therefore, be seen that if plaintiff has any cause of action against the defendant it is for a breach of this contract, and not for “goods" manufactured and sold at defendants’ request.” The judgment must therefore be reversed, as against the weight of the evidence. Brown v. Sullivan, 1 Misc. Rep. 168, 20 N. Y. Supp. 634. Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.Y.S. 1144, 13 Misc. 270, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neff-v-klopfer-nyctcompl-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack