Holley v. A. W. Haile Motor Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Montford C. Holley, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Niagara on the 16th day of December, 1918, upon a dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court at the close of plaintiff’s case as to the defendant Arthur W. Haile, and upon the verdict of a jury as to the defendant A. W. Haile Motor Company, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 19th…
Read the full summary
Appeal by the plaintiff, Montford C. Holley, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Niagara on the 16th day of December, 1918, upon a dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court at the close of plaintiff’s case as to the defendant Arthur W. Haile, and upon the verdict of a jury as to the defendant A. W. Haile Motor Company, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 19th day of December, 1918, denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
1Dissent
Kruse, P. J. (dissenting):
I think the jury could find from the actual transaction, as disclosed by the written evidence and surrounding circumstances, that although the title was taken in the name of Farley, he held the title as agent for the plaintiff. The paper signed by Holley and Farley states that “ I [referring to Holley] have bought for sale by Theo. J. Farley, as my agent,” but does not state from whom he bought them. I *812think the natural inference is that it refers to the sale from the motor company, from whom the automobiles had just previously been bought. Holley knew that the motor…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cutler Mail Chute Co. v. CrawfordAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915