Tidden v. Raab

New York Supreme Court

Tidden v. Raab

14 N.Y.S. 556, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 37, 60 Hun 579, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2397

DecidedMay 11, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 14 N.Y.S. 556 (Tidden v. Raab) 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

Tidden v. Raab, 14 N.Y.S. 556, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 37, 60 Hun 579, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2397 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.

This action was commenced against Barbara Baab, who died •after it was begun, and her executors were substituted as defendants. The suit was brought to recover $248.99 for stained glass furnished by the plaintiffs for a house erected by Mertz for Miss Baab; and the defense was that *he glass was sold to Mertz, the contractor, and not to Miss Baab. That question was contested upon the trial, and proof was offered by each party in -support of their respective positions. There was considerable contradiction in the testimony, and the whole case was submitted to the jury by a charge which was plain and fair, and the plaintiffs obtained the verdict, which is "well-suslained and justified by the evidence, and we think any other verdict would have been inconsistent with the jiroof. The glass was furnished by -the plaintiffs and used in the building, and the value was undisputed, and the testimony tended strongly to show that it was selected and ordered by the ■brother and sister of Miss Baab, with her knowledge and approval; and, as between her and the plaintiffs, she became their debtor for the glass. There was also testimony that the amount was deducted from the bill of Mertz, and -that Miss Baab said she would pay it to the plaintiffs. The judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial on the minutes should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Dykman, J.

This action was commenced against Barbara Baab, who died •after it was begun, and her executors were substituted as defendants. The suit was brought to recover $248.99 for stained glass furnished by the plaintiffs for a house erected by Mertz for Miss Baab; and the defense was that *he glass was sold to Mertz, the contractor, and not to Miss Baab. That question was contested upon the trial, and proof was offered by each party in -support of their respective positions. There was considerable contradiction in the testimony, and the whole case was submitted to the jury by a charge which was plain and fair, and the plaintiffs obtained the verdict, which is "well-suslained and justified by the evidence, and we think any other verdict would have been inconsistent with the jiroof. The glass was furnished by -the plaintiffs and used in the building, and the value was undisputed, and the testimony tended strongly to show that it was selected and ordered by the ■brother and sister of Miss Baab, with her knowledge and approval; and, as between her and the plaintiffs, she became their debtor for the glass. There was also testimony that the amount was deducted from the bill of Mertz, and -that Miss Baab said she would pay it to the plaintiffs. The judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial on the minutes should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.Y.S. 556, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 37, 60 Hun 579, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tidden-v-raab-nysupct-1891.