Sullivan v. Wolff

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Sullivan v. Wolff

98 N.Y.S. 824

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 24, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 98 N.Y.S. 824 (Sullivan v. Wolff) 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

Sullivan v. Wolff, 98 N.Y.S. 824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issue was simply whether the defendants, when receiving $100 from the plaintiff, had agreed to give him possession of the horses purchased, or whether that possession was to await his payment of the balance of the purchase price. There was a close and sharp conflict of testimony upon the question of the terms of the contract, and, if the plaintiff’s version was accepted, judgment was properly rendered in his favor. The justice, however, while finding for the plaintiff, indorsed a memorandum upon the summons to the effect that he did not believe the plaintiff’s story. We cannot reconcile, this statement with the judgment, and substantial justice requires that a new trial be had.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

The issue was simply whether the defendants, when receiving $100 from the plaintiff, had agreed to give him possession of the horses purchased, or whether that possession was to await his payment of the balance of the purchase price. There was a close and sharp conflict of testimony upon the question of the terms of the contract, and, if the plaintiff’s version was accepted, judgment was properly rendered in his favor. The justice, however, while finding for the plaintiff, indorsed a memorandum upon the summons to the effect that he did not believe the plaintiff’s story. We cannot reconcile, this statement with the judgment, and substantial justice requires that a new trial be had.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 N.Y.S. 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-wolff-nyappterm-1906.