Wright v. Berger

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Wright v. Berger

114 N.Y.S. 912

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 5, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 N.Y.S. 912 (Wright v. Berger) 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

Wright v. Berger, 114 N.Y.S. 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff claims that the defendant sold to his assignor 200 shares of stock at $2.50 per share, and that at the time of the sale the defendant agreed that the plaintiff’s assignor should not lose by the purchase, and that if he held it for a year the defendant would repurchase it at the same price. The year expired February 16, 1908. There was no evidence of a tender of the stock to the defendant at the expiration of the year, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The plaintiff contends that tender was waived by the statement of the defendant made in July, 1908. This statement was made too late to enable the plaintiff to recover upon the theory that tender was waived.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. A.11 concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff claims that the defendant sold to his assignor 200 shares of stock at $2.50 per share, and that at the time of the sale the defendant agreed that the plaintiff’s assignor should not lose by the purchase, and that if he held it for a year the defendant would repurchase it at the same price. The year expired February 16, 1908. There was no evidence of a tender of the stock to the defendant at the expiration of the year, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The plaintiff contends that tender was waived by the statement of the defendant made in July, 1908. This statement was made too late to enable the plaintiff to recover upon the theory that tender was waived.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. A.11 concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 N.Y.S. 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-berger-nyappterm-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack