Opinion
November 16, 1955.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Chemung County.
Present — Foster, P.J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Zeller, JJ.
The judgment also included a verdict for defendant upon a counterclaim for the sum of $109.72, but there appears to be no controversy over this item. Plaintiff's action was for loss alleged to have been suffered as the result of defendant's negligence and the breach of his common-law duty in acting as broker for plaintiff in the sale of a carload of cheese. There was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether plaintiff's representative correctly informed defendant as to the grade of cheese offered for sale, and whether defendant followed certain instructions given by the seller in connection therewith. Defendant denied that he received correct information as to the condition of the cheese, and further denied that he received the instructions claimed to have been given by the agent of plaintiff. The jury resolved these issues in favor of the defendant. We do not find the verdict against the weight of evidence, or that any reversible errors were committed in the course of the trial. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.