Prentiss Tool & Supply Co. v. Schirmer

New York Supreme Court

Prentiss Tool & Supply Co. v. Schirmer

17 N.Y.S. 662, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 20, 63 Hun 628, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 444

DecidedFebruary 8, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 17 N.Y.S. 662 (Prentiss Tool & Supply Co. v. Schirmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prentiss Tool & Supply Co. v. Schirmer, 17 N.Y.S. 662, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 20, 63 Hun 628, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 444 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Pratt, J.

There was no error of law committed upon the trial. It does not follow that, because one party makes a charge of fraud against another, there must be a question for a jury. Fraud is a question of fact; but to go before the jury there must be legal evidence, and whether such evidence exists, and, if it does, whether of sufficient weight to sustain a verdict, is a question for the court. The court below propeily refused to submit the question to the jury. There is no foundation for the claim that the instrument was a mortgage. The goods were sold to pay a precedent debt, and it was not difficult for counsel, but putting the words into the mouth of the witness, to get him to say he received them as “security for á debt.” There was no possibility of a surplus. The transaction was a sale, and not a mortgage.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Pratt, J.

There was no error of law committed upon the trial. It does not follow that, because one party makes a charge of fraud against another, there must be a question for a jury. Fraud is a question of fact; but to go before the jury there must be legal evidence, and whether such evidence exists, and, if it does, whether of sufficient weight to sustain a verdict, is a question for the court. The court below propeily refused to submit the question to the jury. There is no foundation for the claim that the instrument was a mortgage. The goods were sold to pay a precedent debt, and it was not difficult for counsel, but putting the words into the mouth of the witness, to get him to say he received them as “security for á debt.” There was no possibility of a surplus. The transaction was a sale, and not a mortgage.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.Y.S. 662, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 20, 63 Hun 628, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prentiss-tool-supply-co-v-schirmer-nysupct-1892.