Youngs v. Packard

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Youngs v. Packard

125 N.Y.S. 764

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 22, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 125 N.Y.S. 764 (Youngs v. Packard) 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

Youngs v. Packard, 125 N.Y.S. 764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiffs claim that they sold and delivered goods to the Buzzini Equipment & Construction Company at the request of the defendants. It is conceded that the goods were delivered to the Buzzini Equipment & Construction Company. The question in [765]*765issue is whether these goods were so delivered at the request of the defendants.

So far as the direct evidence upon this issue is concerned, there was a sharp conflict. Over the objection and exception of the defendants, the plaintiffs were permitted to prove that the Buzzini Equipment & Construction Company was financially irresponsible, and that one Buszini, who with his wife owned a half interest in the corporation, had gone into bankruptcy. In view of the narrow question of fact which -was presented, we think that this incompetent proof was prejudicial to the defendants. There are several other errors pointed out; but, as there must be a new trial, we do not deem it necessary to discuss them at this time.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abifle the event. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiffs claim that they sold and delivered goods to the Buzzini Equipment & Construction Company at the request of the defendants. It is conceded that the goods were delivered to the Buzzini Equipment & Construction Company. The question in [765]*765issue is whether these goods were so delivered at the request of the defendants.

So far as the direct evidence upon this issue is concerned, there was a sharp conflict. Over the objection and exception of the defendants, the plaintiffs were permitted to prove that the Buzzini Equipment & Construction Company was financially irresponsible, and that one Buszini, who with his wife owned a half interest in the corporation, had gone into bankruptcy. In view of the narrow question of fact which -was presented, we think that this incompetent proof was prejudicial to the defendants. There are several other errors pointed out; but, as there must be a new trial, we do not deem it necessary to discuss them at this time.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abifle the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 N.Y.S. 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/youngs-v-packard-nyappterm-1910.