Peterson v. Huff

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Peterson v. Huff

102 N.Y.S. 1146

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 11, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 102 N.Y.S. 1146 (Peterson v. Huff) 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

Peterson v. Huff, 102 N.Y.S. 1146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

Upon this appeal counsel for the defendant contends that evidence was improperly received, in contradiction of an ex-prese covenant to defend title in a bill of sale of chattels, referred to as plaintiff's Exhibit X, but not attached to the return, and made the basis of a counterclaim, to which the plaintiff was not required to make formal reply. Mirnieinal Oourt Act. Laws 1902. n. 1M1. C. F~X4L e m1. In view Ot the warranty Ot title orcirnarily ootainrng upon me snie or goons, wiieuier it was stateu in so many iVOLUS UI not iii the bill of sale is, however, of no very m~t~r~c,1 mnm~nt now. ss th~r~ was siiffici~nt evidence from which the trial justice might infer a subsequent waiver or modification by the parties in relation to certain articles ad-nutted by counsel for the plaintiff to have been iucluded in the bill of sale. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

MacLEAN, J.

Upon this appeal counsel for the defendant contends that evidence was improperly received, in contradiction of an ex-prese covenant to defend title in a bill of sale of chattels, referred to as plaintiff's Exhibit X, but not attached to the return, and made the basis of a counterclaim, to which the plaintiff was not required to make formal reply. Mirnieinal Oourt Act. Laws 1902. n. 1M1. C. F~X4L e m1. In view Ot the warranty Ot title orcirnarily ootainrng upon me snie or goons, wiieuier it was stateu in so many iVOLUS UI not iii the bill of sale is, however, of no very m~t~r~c,1 mnm~nt now. ss th~r~ was siiffici~nt evidence from which the trial justice might infer a subsequent waiver or modification by the parties in relation to certain articles ad-nutted by counsel for the plaintiff to have been iucluded in the bill of sale. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 N.Y.S. 1146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-huff-nyappterm-1907.