Isbell-Porter Co. v. Heineman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendant, Isaac Heineman,, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the cleric of the county of Mew York on the 31st day of October, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court, and also (as stated in the notice of appeal) from an order entered in said clerk’s office in Movember, 1907, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
Houghton, J.:
The plaintiff’s complaint was before this court on demurrer to certain defenses set up by the defendant, and we held that the action was on quantum meruit to recover the value of a certain ice plant installed and alleged to have been accepted and used by defendant. (113 App. Div. 79.)
The trial court ruled that the complaint was not on quantum meruit but upon the original contract entered into between plaintiff and defendant, and held that the defendant had conclusively accepted a machine concededly of less value than the one contracted for, and *714directed a verdict for plaintiff…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Isbell-Porter Co. v. HeinemanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
3Cited by2 opinions
- White v. . SchweitzerNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Isbell Porter Co. v. HeinemanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910