Pakas v. Hollingshead

City of New York Municipal Court

Pakas v. Hollingshead

32 Misc. 748, 65 N.Y.S. 663

DecidedJuly 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Misc. 748 (Pakas v. Hollingshead) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pakas v. Hollingshead, 32 Misc. 748, 65 N.Y.S. 663 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Conlan, J.

The action was one upon contract for the purchase and delivery of certain goods, which the defendants were requested to furnish to the plaintiff. The trial justice, in his charge to the jury, distinctly submitted to them each and every one of the fourteen requests by the defendants in the precise language requested, [749]*749in addition to the general question that they were to determine under the contract whether the plaintiff was entitled to have delivered to him a distinct article, as to which testimony had been adduced upon the trial, and there were no exceptions by the defendants to any portion of the charge. There was no refusal and, therefore, no exception to a refusal. The jury, after their deliberations, reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. There was no dispute as to the amount if the jury found for the plaintiff.

We are not inclined to disturb this finding, and the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Hascall and Schuchman, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

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

Conlan, J.

The action was one upon contract for the purchase and delivery of certain goods, which the defendants were requested to furnish to the plaintiff. The trial justice, in his charge to the jury, distinctly submitted to them each and every one of the fourteen requests by the defendants in the precise language requested, [749]*749in addition to the general question that they were to determine under the contract whether the plaintiff was entitled to have delivered to him a distinct article, as to which testimony had been adduced upon the trial, and there were no exceptions by the defendants to any portion of the charge. There was no refusal and, therefore, no exception to a refusal. The jury, after their deliberations, reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. There was no dispute as to the amount if the jury found for the plaintiff.

We are not inclined to disturb this finding, and the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Hascall and Schuchman, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Misc. 748, 65 N.Y.S. 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pakas-v-hollingshead-nynyccityct-1900.