Case Name: MEYER PEPPER, TRADING AS PEPPER'S, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. SAMUEL GROSSMAN AND HERMAN FELDMAN, TRADING AS UNITED AWNING AND SHADE COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1931-05-25
Citations: 9 N.J. Misc. 608
Docket Number: 
Parties: MEYER PEPPER, TRADING AS PEPPER’S, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. SAMUEL GROSSMAN AND HERMAN FELDMAN, TRADING AS UNITED AWNING AND SHADE COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 608–608

Head Matter:
MEYER PEPPER, TRADING AS PEPPER’S, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. SAMUEL GROSSMAN AND HERMAN FELDMAN, TRADING AS UNITED AWNING AND SHADE COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Submitted October term, 1930
Decided May 25, 1931.
Before Justices Case, Daly and Donges.
Eor the plaintiff-respondent, Samuel J. Rich.
Eor the defendants-appellants, Allan Krieger.

Opinion:
Pbk Curiam.
Defendant sold plaintiff an awning for $27.50. On the paper called "contract" was the following: "All orders subject to approval of office. Awnings remain our property until paid in full. A deposit required on all work. Our terms are strictly cash—when awnings are completed and put up pay man who delivers them." The awning was not fully paid for. In the absence of the plaintiff, defendant sent and removed the awning. Plaintiff sued, on a trespass, for alleged damages, including damage to furs from being exposed to the sun. Verdict went for the plaintiff in the amount of $230, and defendants appeal. A reading of the evidence convinces us that it does not sustain the verdict.
Judgment below is reversed, with costs.