Hyperlawhypertext legal database Seidenfried v. Ullman 123 N.Y.S. 2

← Cases

Seidenfried v. Ullman

123 N.Y.S. 2 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1910-05-24 English

Contents

Majority

p. 2
SEIDENFRIED v. ULLMAN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
May 24, 1910.)

Headnote

Sales (§ 359[1] )—Actions fob Purchase Price—Sufficiency of Evidence.
Where, in an action for the price of goods, the sale and delivery of the goods is not denied, and there was no competent evidence to prove payment, the evidence is insufficient to support a judgment for defendant.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Dec. Dig. § 359.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
Action by Jacob Seidenfried against Milton Ullman. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before SEABURY, LEHMAN, and PAGE, JJ.
Isadore Apfel, for appellant.
Abraham I. Smolens, for respondent.

The sale and delivery of the goods was not defied at the trial. The defendant not alone failed to establish his defense of payment by a fair preponderance of the evidence, but there was not a scintilla of competent evidence tending to sustain it.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.