Case ID: misc_13/html/0264-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bookstaver, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Gair, Appellant, v. David Auerbach, Respondent.
    (New York Common Pleas — Additional General Term,
    June, 1895.)
    Defendant gave an order to plaintiff for the manufacture of a quantity of paper "boxes for use in the candy trade, and at the same time furnished a copy of the matter to be printed thereon and a folded cardboard . showing the style of box used by defendant, on which the printed matter was arranged differently. A proof was furnished and approved similar to the copy furnished, and the printing was done in accordance therewith. The first installment delivered was retained tinder objection that it was improperly printed, and the second was refused on the ground that it differed from the cardboard sample. In an action to recover for the portion delivered the court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the goods delivered were not according to the sample or the first proof. Held, error.
    In such an action, in the absence of a special direction as to the matter, evidence as to the manner in which such boxes were printed and made in the candy trade is admissible.
    Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment rendered in the District Court of the city of New York for the eleventh judicial district.
    . John Jerolomcm, for appellant.
    
      Moses-Fsberg, for respondent.
   Bookstaver, J.

This action was brought to recover for goods sold and delivered. At the close of the plaintiff’s case the court dismissed the complaint on the groundThat “ the goods made and delivered were not according to the sample furnished, and were not according to the first proof furnished by the plaintiff to the defendant; ” and also on the ground that the plaintiff never completed the entire order. Plaintiff contends that this conclusion was not warranted by the evidence. On such a contention it is our duty to examine the evidence and to reverse the judgment if the conclusion is, in our opinion, unwarranted. Schumacher v. Waring, 7 Misc. Rep. 161; Curley v. Tomlinson,5 Daly, 283; Macniffe v. Ludington, 13 Abb. N. C. 407; Fixam v. Brown, 3 N. Y. St. Repr. 608; Brown v. Sulliwan, 1 Misc. Rep. 161; Siefke v. Siefke, 3 id. 81. From the evidence it appears that at defendant’s request the plaintiff undertook to make 50,000 paper boxes to be used in the candy trade, upon which was to be impressed certain printed matter. At the time the contract was entered into there was submitted a copy of the matter to be printed, arranged in a certain way, so that the figure 5 ” and the word “ cents ” showed on the two ends of the box when folded, and if turned around horizontally on the larger plane surface both of these would be upright, but if turned around perpendicularly one of the two would be up-side down. There was also at the same time submitted a folded cardboard of the kind of box theretofore used by defendant, which showed -on the ends a figure “ 5 ” and the word “ cents ” so arranged that if turned around horizontally one would be upright and the other upside down. But the evidence does not disclose which of these two was to be followed in printing the order in question. It did in fact strictly conform to the arrangement of the copy furnished, proof of which' was submitted to defendant and approved by him; this alone would have justified the plaintiff in printing the matter as he did. Besides, in the absence of proof of any express agreement to the contrary, we think the presumption must be that it was intended by the parties that it should be printed according to the copy and not according to the folded pasteboard, which was submitted doubtless merely for the purpose of showing the general arrangement of the parts. The plaintiff subsequently printed cardboards sufficient to make all or nearly all of the boxes ordered and made up 1,500 of them, which were delivered to the defendant, who claimed that they were improperly printed in the respect above mentioned. He, however, did not return them nor offer to return them. Subsequently over 8,000 of the boxes were delivered and returned to the plaintiff on the ground that they differed from the cardboard sample. The testimony shows that at one time the defendant claimed it was .not according to the cardboard sample, and at another1 time not according to the copy furnished; but, as before shown, it was almost a Chinese repro duction of the copy. We, therefore, think that the court erred in finding that the boxes were not according to the copy furnished, and also that they were not according to sample, as there is no proof that there was anything said as to the mode or manner of arranging the printed matter. We also think the court erred under these circumstances in excluding the evidence as to the mode or manner in which such boxes were printed and made in the candy trade, as the plaintiff was clearly justified, in the absence of a special direction as to this matter, in following the usual mode in that trade.

As the judgment must be reversed for these errors, it is unnecessary to discuss the question as to whether or not the plaintiff was excused from a complete performance of the contract, as the evidence upon this point may he made clearer upon another trial. Judgment . reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Bisohoff, J., concurs.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.