Hyperlawhypertext legal database Buehler v. Johnson 147 N.Y.S. 867

← Cases

Buehler v. Johnson

147 N.Y.S. 867 Court Argued May term, 1914, before GUY, BIJUR, and PENDLETON, JJ. Decision date 1914-05-21 English

Contents

Majority

p. 867
BUEHLER v. JOHNSON.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
May 21, 1914.)

Headnote

Contracts (§ 322[1] )—Action—Evidence.
Where the contract was intended to provide for the furnishing of all the models specified on the plans, the refusal to allow a witness to state from the plans the models not furnished was error.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1306, 1307, 1339, 1347, 1348, 1465, 1492, 1534-1542, 1754, 1768, 1772, 1801, 1802, 1804r-1808, 1815, 1816; Dec. Dig. § 322.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
Action by Leon M. Buehler against Arland W. Johnson. Judgment for plaintiff after a trial by the court without a jury, and defendant appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued May term, 1914, before GUY, BIJUR, and PENDLETON, JJ.
Hart & Tompkins, of New York City (Millard E. Tompkins, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
M. A. Vosburgh, of New York City, for respondent.

The refusal of the court to allow the witness to state from the “plans” the models not furnished was error. The contract was clearly intended to provide for the furnishing of all the models specified on the “plans.”

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