Legal Opinion

Hungerford Co. v. Rosenstein

New York Court of Common Pleas

Decided June 6, 1892Published

Appeal from trial term. Action by the Hungerford Company against Clara Rosenstein to recover purchase money. From a judgment for plaintiff, and order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtBischoff, J.

The complaint declared upon two causes of action, the first for the unpaid balance of the purchase money agreed to be paid for the sale *472and delivery of certain machinery to defendant, and the second for work, labor, and services rendered and materials furnished at defendant’s request. There was no motion to dismiss the complaint, or for the direction of a verdict •for defendant, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support plaintiff’s recovery upon both causes of action was thus conceded. The learned trial judge also charged the jury, without objection or exception by defendant, that the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lamson Consolidated Store-Service Co. v. HartungNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API