Stewart v. Stern

New York Supreme Court

Stewart v. Stern

32 N.Y.S. 1133

DecidedApril 1, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 32 N.Y.S. 1133 (Stewart v. Stern) 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

Stewart v. Stern, 32 N.Y.S. 1133 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

GIEGERICH, J.

The plaintiff’s appeal is based upon the erro-

neous theory that there was a sale and delivery to him on credit of the chattels sought to be replevied. The evidence, viewed in the most favorable light to the appellant, shows but a sale on condition that the plaintiff would bring a truck, and a check for the purchase price of the same, and that he did return on the same day, and make tender by check for the amount thereof, but which was refused. The evidence on the part of the defendants, however, shows that there was a sale of the chattels in question, conditioned that the plaintiff would immediately take away the goods, and pay for the same, which condition he failed to comply with; and upon his failure to do so the chattels were sold to the defendants. The justice credited the defendants’ version of the transaction, and we see no reason for disturbing his determination of the facts in the absence of the elements which are requisite to review the same. Lynes v. Hickey, 4 Misc. Rep. 522. 24 N. Y. Supp. 731; Weis v. Strauss (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 14 N. Y. Supp. 776. The case, therefore, of Founding Co. v. Grant, 114 N. Y. 40, 21 N. E. 49, cited by both sides, has no application, because there was no delivery in this case. For these reasons the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

GIEGERICH, J.

The plaintiff’s appeal is based upon the erro-

neous theory that there was a sale and delivery to him on credit of the chattels sought to be replevied. The evidence, viewed in the most favorable light to the appellant, shows but a sale on condition that the plaintiff would bring a truck, and a check for the purchase price of the same, and that he did return on the same day, and make tender by check for the amount thereof, but which was refused. The evidence on the part of the defendants, however, shows that there was a sale of the chattels in question, conditioned that the plaintiff would immediately take away the goods, and pay for the same, which condition he failed to comply with; and upon his failure to do so the chattels were sold to the defendants. The justice credited the defendants’ version of the transaction, and we see no reason for disturbing his determination of the facts in the absence of the elements which are requisite to review the same. Lynes v. Hickey, 4 Misc. Rep. 522. 24 N. Y. Supp. 731; Weis v. Strauss (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 14 N. Y. Supp. 776. The case, therefore, of Founding Co. v. Grant, 114 N. Y. 40, 21 N. E. 49, cited by both sides, has no application, because there was no delivery in this case. For these reasons the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.Y.S. 1133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-stern-nysupct-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack