TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kohn v. Schuldenfrei

Kohn v. Schuldenfrei, 84 N.Y.S. 870 (1903)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 18, 1903
Citations
84 N.Y.S. 870
Headnotes
1. Interest—Failure to Demand—Effect. The failure to demand interest in the oral complaint and the failure to state the item of interest in the bill of particulars do not prevent the court from allowing interest as a matter of substantial justice. ¶ 1. See Interest, vol. 29, Cent. Dig. § 147.
Summary
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District. . Action for commissions on sales by Isaac C. Kohn against Henry Schuldenfrei. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Modified.

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.

Upon the issue of fact involving the custom of trade as to commissions of salesmen on goods sold but returned, the probabilities are not necessarily with the defendant in his contention that the return of the goods, irrespective of reasons for the return, where no 'fault of the salesman is involved, must result in the loss of commissions. The evidence justified a finding to the contrary, supported, also, by the actual custom of these parties in their dealings; The pleadings being oral, the failure to demand interest in the complaint does not affect the plaintiff’s rights, and, while an item of interest is not stated in the bill of particulars, there was no error in the allowance of interest as a matter of substantial justice. It appears, however, that a very material mistake was made in the computation upon which the judgment was founded. Th.e item of commissions at per cent, on sales of $13,110.53 is actually $983.29,. but the justice has accepted the plaintiff’s statement that the computation results in $1,083.31. Obviously, the recovery so far cannot be supported, but, the other items being correct, the judgment will be affirmed, if properly reduced. The reduction, with the proportionate interest allowed, should be $105.84. If the .respondent consents- to a modifica *871 tion to this extent, the judgment will be affirmed, with costs; otherwise judgment reversed, and a 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.

1917: 119172026peak 1917 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Young v. Young179 Iowa 1259 (1917)

Most recent

  1. Young v. Young179 Iowa 1259 (1917)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list