Case ID: nys_63/html/1105-12.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CARROLL et al., Respondents, v. TOPLITZ, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    March 16, 1900.)
    Action by William Carroll and others against Solomon B. Toplitz. From a judgment for plaintiffs (60 N. Y. Supp. 1134), defendant appeals. Affirmed. Harry L. Toplitz, for appellant. Mulqueen & Mulqueen, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

In his colloquial charge the learned justice was not so precise as he might have been in his statement of the duty of the plaintiffs promptly to examine and accept or reject the goods sold to them. He did, however, at defendant’s request, charge very fully upon that subject afterwards. His statement as to the relevancy of ' the defendant’s requests, and which to some extent qualified them, was not excepted to. Taking the colloquial charge and the request together, the jury had the law stated to them as favorably as the defendant was entitled to. The other exceptions in the case do not show reversible error. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.