Western Union Sewing Machine Co. v. Sachs

32 Misc. 736, 67 N.Y.S. 2
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided November 15, 1900·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The burden of proof was upon the plaintiff and was not sustained. It appears that the whole agreement between [737]*737the parties was not evidenced by the writing. There was a payment of two dollars and one of ten dollars on an unexplained account. If it was an account of rental as indicated on Exhibit 6., there was no default shown. If it was on account of purchase price there must have been a modification of the agreement suggested by Exhibit 6, and as it does not appear in what respect there was a modification it cannot be said that the plaintiff was entitled to the property.

In addition it may be said that there was no evidence of a refusal to deliver. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Western Union Sewing Machine Co. v. Sachs, 32 Misc. 736, 67 N.Y.S. 2 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

32 Misc. 736 (Western Union Sewing Machine Co. v. Sachs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams v. Witt
235 A.2d 902 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1967)
Universal Holding Co. v. North Bergen Tp.
150 A.2d 44 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1959)
MN Axinn Co. v. Gibraltar Development, Inc.
133 A.2d 341 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)
Standard Oil, Etc., Union v. ESSO RESEARCH, CO.
118 A.2d 70 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
Collingswood Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Am. Fed. Hosiery Workers
101 A.2d 372 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1953)
MacH. Printers, Etc., US v. Merrill, Etc., Works
78 A.2d 834 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1951)