Case ID: nys_4/html/0557-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam .", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wallace et al. v. Blake et al.
    
    
      (Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.
    
    April 1, 1889.)
    Appeal—To Court op Appeals—Leave.
    The questions whether the fact that one lot of goods sold is faulty raises a presumption that another lot is also faulty, and whether a buyer may reject the goods purchased whenever they happen to be in the custom-house, without examination or proof that they are defective, are not of sufficient novelty or importance to justify the granting of leave to appeal to the court of appeals.
    On motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals.
    A statement of the case will be found in 2 M. Y. Supp. 403, 3 M. Y. Supp. 934.
    Argued before Lakeemoee, O. J., and Daly and Van Hoesen, JJ.
    
      W. C. Beecher, for motion. Norwood & Ooggeshall, opposed.
   Pee Curiam .

Mo good reason for allowing this case to go to the court of appeals has been given. We do not think it necessary to ask that court whether or not the fact that one lot of goods is faulty raises a legal presumption that another and a different lot is also faulty. Mor do we think it necessary to ask whether a buyer is permitted to reject without examination, and without any proof that they are defective, goods that he has bought, whenever those goods happen to be in the custom-house. These two questions the appellant regards as of sufficient novelty and importance to entitle him to a certificate of this court that in the interest of the public the case should be considered by the court of last resort. We see no difficulty, no novelty, nor any importance in either of the questions, and therefore deny the application for leave to appeal to the court of appeals.