Case ID: misc_10/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Giegerich, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Adolph Prince, Respondent, v. Jacob Feller and Israel Doushkess, Appellant.
    (New York Common Pleas
    Additional General Term,
    December, 1894.)
    The determination of questions of fact by the justice of a District Court rendered upon conflicting evidence is not the subject of review where it does not appear that he was influenced by prejudice, partiality or bias.
    Appeal by the defendant Doushkess from a judgment of the District Court in the city of New York for the fifth judicial district, rendered by the justice thereof in favor of the plaintiff.
    Action for goods sold and delivered.
    The opinion states the facts as far as they are material.
    
      Gha/rles F. Hol/m, for appellant.
    
      Jacob Levy, for respondent.
   Giegerich, J.

The complaint alleges that the Burger Brewing Company sold and delivered to the defendants merchandise consisting of beer amounting to $147.35; that no part thereof has been paid, and that prior to the commencement of the action the claim was assigned to the plaintiff. The defendant Jacob Feller interposed no defense. The defendant Israel JDoushkess put in an answer which substantially denied all the allegations of the complaint, and, as a further defense, alleged that he, individually, purchased beer from the plaintiff’s assignor upon which he was allowed a rebate of nineteen dollars and fifty cents; that he paid to the plaintiff’s assignor thirty dollars' “ on account of said beer,” leaving a balance of twenty-eight dollars and fifty cents, which plaintiff’s assignor refused to accept, and which sum he alleged his willingness to pay and produce on the trial of the action. The record, however, fails to show that such or any other sum was produced upon the trial.

There was a conflict of testimony upon the questions raised by the pleadings between the plaintiff, who was an agent and collector of his said assignor, and the defendant Feller upon the one hand and the defendant Douslikess on the other, and, upon the whole, we conclude from the evidence that the justice was amply justified in finding, which, from the judgment rendered, we assume he did, that the defendants were copartners during the times alleged in the complaint; that beer was sold and delivered to them as such for the amount claimed; that no payments were made on account thereof, and that no rebate had been earned or allowed. The determination of these questions being peculiarly Within the province of the justice, they are, therefore, not the subject of review here, the elements justifying such review not appearing in this case. Lynes v. Hickey, 4 Misc. Rep. 422 ; 24 N. Y. Supp. 751 ; Weiss v. Strauss, 14 id. 776 ; 39 N. Y. St. Repr. 78. It follows that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Bisohoff, J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.