Seidenfried v. Ullman
Seidenfried v. Ullman, 123 N.Y.S. 2 (1910)
Headnotes
Sales (§ 359*)—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.*]
Summary
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
Action by Jacob Seidenfried against Milton Ullman. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.