Uditsky v. Goldblatt

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Uditsky v. Goldblatt

5 R.I. Dec. 137

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJuly 5, 1929

DocketNo. 75881

StatusPublished

This text of 5 R.I. Dec. 137 (Uditsky v. Goldblatt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Uditsky v. Goldblatt, 5 R.I. Dec. 137 (R.I. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

HAHN, J.

After verdict for the defendants, heard on motion of the plaintiffs for a new trial based upon the usual grounds.

This action arose out of an agreement on the part of the defendants to purchase certain real estate from the plaintiffs. The defence was to the effect that the plaintiffs were not ready to carry out their contract in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into, and, further, that there was no loss or damage to the plaintiffs because the fair market value of the property was equal to, if not greater than the amount which the defendants had agreed to pay.

A consideration of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the verdict is not against the evidence or the weight thereof but is sustained by the evidence.

Plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial denied.

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

HAHN, J.

After verdict for the defendants, heard on motion of the plaintiffs for a new trial based upon the usual grounds.

This action arose out of an agreement on the part of the defendants to purchase certain real estate from the plaintiffs. The defence was to the effect that the plaintiffs were not ready to carry out their contract in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into, and, further, that there was no loss or damage to the plaintiffs because the fair market value of the property was equal to, if not greater than the amount which the defendants had agreed to pay.

A consideration of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the verdict is not against the evidence or the weight thereof but is sustained by the evidence.

Plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 R.I. Dec. 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uditsky-v-goldblatt-risuperct-1929.