Stromberg v. Amelio

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Stromberg v. Amelio

35 Misc. 826, 72 N.Y.S. 1131

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Misc. 826 (Stromberg v. Amelio) 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

Stromberg v. Amelio, 35 Misc. 826, 72 N.Y.S. 1131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is some confusion from the evidence arising from the use of the masculine pronoun in the plaintiff’s testimony; this may be from an error of the stenographer. There appeared on the trial that two watches were sold by the plaintiff, one to the defendant and another to a third person which was afterwards returned. There is no evidence that the watch sold to the defendant was ever returned, or the balance due therefor was ever paid.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

There is some confusion from the evidence arising from the use of the masculine pronoun in the plaintiff’s testimony; this may be from an error of the stenographer. There appeared on the trial that two watches were sold by the plaintiff, one to the defendant and another to a third person which was afterwards returned. There is no evidence that the watch sold to the defendant was ever returned, or the balance due therefor was ever paid.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 826, 72 N.Y.S. 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stromberg-v-amelio-nyappterm-1901.