Standard Fashion Co. v. Weinstock

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Standard Fashion Co. v. Weinstock

111 N.Y.S. 513

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 30, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 111 N.Y.S. 513 (Standard Fashion Co. v. Weinstock) 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

Standard Fashion Co. v. Weinstock, 111 N.Y.S. 513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment recovered in this action rests upon a very insecure foundation. The action was brought to recover damages for gdods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant under a written contract made between the parties. The defendant denied the delivery of all the goods which the plaintiff claimed to have delivered, and defended upon the ground that she was induced to sign, the contract by reason of the misrepresentations and fraud of the plaintiff’s agent. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

The answer contained general allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, but did not set forth the alleged false and fraudulent representations, or plead the facts upon which this defense was based. The alleged defense set up in the answer was insufficient, and the plaintiff’s motion to strike it out should have been granted. The evidence of the defendant as to the alleged fraud was as general and indefinite as the allegations of her answer. The evidence in this record is wholly insufficient to support the verdict which was rendered.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment recovered in this action rests upon a very insecure foundation. The action was brought to recover damages for gdods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant under a written contract made between the parties. The defendant denied the delivery of all the goods which the plaintiff claimed to have delivered, and defended upon the ground that she was induced to sign, the contract by reason of the misrepresentations and fraud of the plaintiff’s agent. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

The answer contained general allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, but did not set forth the alleged false and fraudulent representations, or plead the facts upon which this defense was based. The alleged defense set up in the answer was insufficient, and the plaintiff’s motion to strike it out should have been granted. The evidence of the defendant as to the alleged fraud was as general and indefinite as the allegations of her answer. The evidence in this record is wholly insufficient to support the verdict which was rendered.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 N.Y.S. 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standard-fashion-co-v-weinstock-nyappterm-1908.