From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rach's Mashing Process Company v. Seitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1896
9 App. Div. 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)

Opinion

October, 1896.


Judgment affirmed, with costs. —


Assuming that the contract of sale contains a warranty of quality of the beer to be manufactured by the cooking process, defendant, by his pleading, does not present that issue. The answer, at considerable length and in much detail, makes specific denials of the allegations of the complaint, and makes affirmative allegation of breach of contract in several respects. But it nowhere alleges that there was a warranty in the quality of the beer which the cooker should produce, or that there was a breach of warranty in this respect. Consequently there was no issue raised which required a determination by the jury. ( Chambers v. Lancaster, 3 App. Div. 215.) The answer is also silent respecting any defect in the boiler, and the evidence offered to establish such defect was properly excluded, for the reason that no such issue was present to be tried. ( Linton v. U.F. Co., 124 N.Y. 533.) In all other respects it was not controverted but that the cooker complied with the contract. There was, therefore, no controverted question of fact to be decided, and the court was clearly right in directing the verdict which it did. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Brown, P.J., not sitting.


Summaries of

Rach's Mashing Process Company v. Seitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1896
9 App. Div. 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)
Case details for

Rach's Mashing Process Company v. Seitz

Case Details

Full title:The Rach's Mashing Process Company, Respondent, v. Michael Seitz, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 1, 1896

Citations

9 App. Div. 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)