Majority
p. 377ACME ELECTRIC LAMP CO. v. KINGSTON CARRIAGE CO. (City Court of New York, General Term. May 1, 1900.) Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and CONIAH, J.
Headnote
Sale—Action for Price—Question for Jury.In an action to recover the value of goods delivered defendant under a written contract that such goods as were defective might be returned, the question whether defendant returned in a reasonable time was for the jury.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by the Acme Electric Lamp Company against the Kingston Carriage Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Kellogg, Bose & Smith, for appellant.
Henry B. Twombly, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict at a trial term, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover the value of certain goods delivered to the defendant under a written contract, which were to be furnished from time to time, with the
p. 378
proviso that such goods as failed to do what was represented by the plaintiff might be returned by the defendant. Under the terms of this agreement the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, in December, 1896, certain goods, of the alleged value of $200.25; and the defendant, claiming a breach of this provision of the contract above referred to, undertook at some time thereafter to return the goods so delivered, and one of the questions which was submitted to the jury was whether such return was made within a reasonable time after the alleged defects were discovered and pointed out; and the jury determined that issue in favor of the plaintiff. With the submission of this question to the jury we think the entire case was disposed of, and, as it was the province of the jury to determine this issue, the court on appeal will not interfere to disturb the finding.
Judgment and order appealed from affirmed.
FITZSIMONS, C. J., concurs.