From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scharf v. Glasser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1922
202 App. Div. 823 (N.Y. App. Div. 1922)

Summary

In Scharf v. Glasser (202 App. Div. 823) the Second Department applied the same rule in connection with manufactured goods, holding that the defendants had a right under a general denial to show that the goods manufactured were not in accordance with the sample and were not tendered for delivery in time.

Summary of this case from Irving Trust Co. v. Park Tilford Import Corp.

Opinion

June, 1922.


Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. It was error to exclude the evidence, offered by defendants, that the plaintiffs had failed to perform their contract, in that the goods manufactured were not in accordance with the sample, and were not tendered for delivery in time. ( Dickinson v. Tysen, 209 N.Y. 395, 401; New York N.H. Sprinkler Co. v. Andrews, 38 App. Div. 56.) Blackmar, P.J., Rich, Kelly, Jaycox and Young, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Scharf v. Glasser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1922
202 App. Div. 823 (N.Y. App. Div. 1922)

In Scharf v. Glasser (202 App. Div. 823) the Second Department applied the same rule in connection with manufactured goods, holding that the defendants had a right under a general denial to show that the goods manufactured were not in accordance with the sample and were not tendered for delivery in time.

Summary of this case from Irving Trust Co. v. Park Tilford Import Corp.
Case details for

Scharf v. Glasser

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH SCHARF and BENJAMIN AXELROD, Respondents, v. JACOB GLASSER and LEO…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1922

Citations

202 App. Div. 823 (N.Y. App. Div. 1922)

Citing Cases

Irving Trust Co. v. Park Tilford Import Corp.

Duryee v. Lester ( 75 N.Y. 442) and Jacobs v. Beyer ( 141 App. Div. 49) were both disapproved in Dickinson v.…