Riessen v. Pusateri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Riessen v. Pusateri

229 A.D. 432, 242 N.Y.S. 346, 1930 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10409

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 21, 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 229 A.D. 432 (Riessen v. Pusateri) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Riessen v. Pusateri, 229 A.D. 432, 242 N.Y.S. 346, 1930 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The jury was justified in finding that the contract between the parties was for the sale of 5,076 bushels of Baldwin, New York, apples, United States No. 2, two and one-quarter inches up, and not for ungra ded apples, as claimed by the defendants. There [433]*433is also ample evidence to warrant the finding that, on April 17, 1928, when these apples were inspected by the inspector of the Department of Agriculture, they failed to meet the requirements of the grade called for by the contract. The sale of the apples, however, was made on March 2,1928, and we think that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a finding that the apples at that time were in the same condition that they were on April 17, 1928. It was a part of plaintiff’s case to show that the apples were not as represented at the time of the sale, and unless there is evidence sufficient to warrant such a finding, the judgment cannot be sustained. Because of the lack of such evidence, we think that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted.

All concur, except Thompson, J., who dissents and votes for affirmance. Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

The jury was justified in finding that the contract between the parties was for the sale of 5,076 bushels of Baldwin, New York, apples, United States No. 2, two and one-quarter inches up, and not for ungra ded apples, as claimed by the defendants. There [433]*433is also ample evidence to warrant the finding that, on April 17, 1928, when these apples were inspected by the inspector of the Department of Agriculture, they failed to meet the requirements of the grade called for by the contract. The sale of the apples, however, was made on March 2,1928, and we think that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a finding that the apples at that time were in the same condition that they were on April 17, 1928. It was a part of plaintiff’s case to show that the apples were not as represented at the time of the sale, and unless there is evidence sufficient to warrant such a finding, the judgment cannot be sustained. Because of the lack of such evidence, we think that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted.

All concur, except Thompson, J., who dissents and votes for affirmance. Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D. 432, 242 N.Y.S. 346, 1930 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riessen-v-pusateri-nyappdiv-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack