Hyperlawhypertext legal database Feiber v. Home Silk Mills 148 N.Y.S. 259

← Cases

Feiber v. Home Silk Mills

148 N.Y.S. 259 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1914-06-18 English

Contents

Majority

p. 259
FEIBER v. HOME SILK MILLS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
June 18, 1914.)

Headnote

Trial (§ 143[1] )—Question for Jury—Conflicting Evidence.
Where the evidence upon an issue of fact is conflicting, the question ia for the jury.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 342, 343; Dec. Dig. § 143.*]
On reargument. Former judgment ( 143 N. Y. Supp. 1014 ), reversing the judgment of the City Court, vacated, and judgment of the City Court affirmed.

Upon re-examination of the evidence in this case, we think that there was sufficient evidence of the modification of the contract to carry that issue to the jury. In view of Knight’s testimony that he was the treasurer and manager of the defendant company, his authority to employ the plaintiff was sufficiently evidenced. The plaintiff denied that he had any information as to the alleged limitation of Knight’s authority, and the jury believed his denial. An issue of fact having been presented, and the jury having accepted the testimony of the plaintiff, we think that the judgment "based upon the verdict should not be disturbed.

Upon reargument, the judgment is affirmed, with costs, and the former order of this court, reversing said judgment, vacated.