Regester v. Edward Barr Co.

Superior Court of New York

Regester v. Edward Barr Co.

14 N.Y.S. 477, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2065

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedMay 4, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 14 N.Y.S. 477 (Regester v. Edward Barr Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo 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., 14 N.Y.S. 477, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2065 (superctny 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 [478]*478jury 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.

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 [478]*478jury 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.Y.S. 477, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/regester-v-edward-barr-co-superctny-1891.