Majority
p. 202MAURER v. WOLFF et al. (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department. December 12, 1892.) Argufed before BARNARD, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.
Headnote
1. Sale—Rescission—Recovery of Price Paid. Where a horse is sold under an agreement that,the purchaser may-have 30 days in which to determine whether it is satisfactory, and he returns the horse within that time, the seller receiving it without objection, the purchaser is entitled to a return of the purchase money.3, Same—Sunday. The fact that a sale was made on Sunday is no defense to an action by the purchaser, after he has rescinded the sale, to recover the price paid, since the invalidity of the contract of sale is no excuse for retaining the money.
Appeal from Kings county court.
Action by Theodore Maurer against Armand Wolff and Jules Wolff to recover for money paid by plaintiff to defendants ■ for a horse which plaintiff bought from them and afterwards returned. Plaintiff obtained judgment. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Hurd & Grim, for appellants.
John F. Foley, for respondent.
The testimony authorizes a finding that plaintiff had 30 days in which to determine^ whether the horse was satisfactory. Within that time the horse was returned to the vendor, who received it without objection so far as appears. This action is brought to recover back the price paid for the horse on the original purchase. No defense is pleaded except that the original sale was made on Sunday, which is clearly frivolous. If the sale was invalid, that affords no reason why defendant should be allowed to keep money belonging to his neighbor.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.