Regester v. Edward Barr Co.

The Superior Court of New York City

Regester v. Edward Barr Co.

39 N.Y. St. Rep. 138

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedMay 4, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 138 (Regester v. Edward Barr Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Regester v. Edward Barr Co., 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 138 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Freedman, J.

—The contract as to the iron soil pipe in question is to be found in the correspondence between the parties. On the trial the issue whether the pipe delivered was the pipe which the defendant had agreed to buy and the plaintiffs had agreed to sell was sharply litigated and submitted to the jury on three different theories. There was no exception to the charge and no request made to charge otherwise. Nor had the defendant asked the court to dismiss the complaint or to direct a verdict for the defendant. The jury having found a verdict in accordance with one of the theories submitted, the verdict is not open to the objection that it is excessive. Upon the whole case I fail to perceive how the verdict can be disturbed.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Sedgwick, Oh. J., concurs.

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

Freedman, J.

—The contract as to the iron soil pipe in question is to be found in the correspondence between the parties. On the trial the issue whether the pipe delivered was the pipe which the defendant had agreed to buy and the plaintiffs had agreed to sell was sharply litigated and submitted to the jury on three different theories. There was no exception to the charge and no request made to charge otherwise. Nor had the defendant asked the court to dismiss the complaint or to direct a verdict for the defendant. The jury having found a verdict in accordance with one of the theories submitted, the verdict is not open to the objection that it is excessive. Upon the whole case I fail to perceive how the verdict can be disturbed.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Sedgwick, Oh. J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 N.Y. St. Rep. 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/regester-v-edward-barr-co-nysuperctnyc-1891.