Brown & Lowe Co. v. Potolski
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtVan Kirk, J.
Potolski was working out a highway contract. The plaintiff delivered, and claims that he sold for an agreed price, a second-hand road machine to Potolski. The machine was never returned to plaintiff, but defendant, after demand, refused to pay for it. This action is brought to recover the selling price. Defendant’s position is as follows: He did not purchase the machine. *300He took it on approval to “ try it out ” and if found in good condition he would keep and pay for it. This position is conclusively shown by the correspondence between the parties. Defendant wrote on August 23, 1924, in reply…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Greacen v. . PoehlmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
3Cited by9 opinions
- Johnston Jewels, Ltd. v. LeonardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Tabor v. LoganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Sherkate Sahami Khass Rapol v. Henry R. Jahn & Son, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- Sherkate Sahami Khass Rapol v. Henry R. Jahn & Son, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1982
- Texpor Traders, Inc. v. Trust Company BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.