Case Name: SCHOPFLOCHER et al. v. MACHENBACH
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-01-27
Citations: 120 N.Y.S. 866
Docket Number: 
Parties: SCHOPFLOCHER et al. v. MACHENBACH.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 120
Pages: 866–870

Head Matter:
SCHOPFLOCHER et al. v. MACHENBACH.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
January 27, 1910.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 1002 )—Verdict—Conclusiveness.
A verdict on sharply conflicting evidence will not be disturbed.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3935-3937; Dec. Dig. § 1002. ]
2. Sales (§ 382 )—Breach oe Contract—Evidence.
Where, in an action for breach of contract for the purchase of merchandise to be manufactured, it appeared that the contract included prior or ders by the buyer for goods to be manufactured by the seller, the proof of damages properly included the prior orders.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Dec. Dig. § 382. ]
Dayton, J., dissenting.
Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
Action by Herman Schopflocher and another against Ernest Machenbach. From a judgment for plaintiffs, entered on a verdict, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before GIEGERICH, DAYTON, and LEHMAN, JJ.
Breen Bros. (Henry J. Breen, of counsel), for appellant.
Adam K. Strieker, for respondents.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
LEHMAN, J.
Although the transaction is somewhat involved and the testimony somewhat confused, I think that the inference can be fairly drawn from the evidence that the defendant, on March 4 and 18, 1907, ordered goods from the plaintiffs, which were to be manufactured or procured by the plaintiffs' Japanese correspondents. It was contemplated by the parties that the orders were not to be absolute until the plaintiffs' letters to their correspondents should arrive in Yokohama. Apparently on March 18th the defendant had determined to take at least the quantity ordered on March 4th, and the order to that extent became binding upon the receipt of the letter of that date in Yokohama. The intent of the parties, however, was to enter into a larger binding contract before the arrival in Yokohama of the letter of March 18th, which contract should include at least the order of March 4th. On April 9th, and just previous to the arrival of the letter of March 18th in Yokohama, the parties seem to have agreed that the entire orders of March 4th and March 18th should be binding, and all these goods are included in the contract which became effective on that date. While there is a sharp conflict of testimony between the parties, and neither side tells a story free from inconsistencies, it seems to me that the verdict is not against the weight of evidence.
The proof of damages properly included the propositions of both March 4th and March 18th, because both were included in the contract of April 9th, and the trial justice excluded evidence as to the order of March 4th only because it became part of the subsequent contract.
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
GIEGERICH, J., concurs.