Case Name: COBLE v. POTTER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-03-05
Citations: 140 N.Y.S. 855
Docket Number: 
Parties: COBLE v. POTTER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 140
Pages: 855–857

Head Matter:
COBLE v. POTTER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
March 5, 1913.)
1. Sales (§ 442 )—Warranties—Breach.
In an action for the purchase price of cattle, where the defendant counterclaimed for breach of warranty, the fact that the value of the animals exceeded the contract price is not a defense to the counterclaim.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 1284-1301; Dec. Dig. § 442.*]
2. Appeal and Error (§ 263*)—Objections Below—Necessity.
Where defendant in an action for the purchase price of cattle counterclaimed for breach of warranty, and, under an improper charge that if they were of a value exceeding the contract price plaintiff was entitled to the full amount, the jury so found, and it could not be determined whether the finding was in obedience to the erroneous instruction, the error may be reviewed on appeal notwithstanding defendant’s failure to except to the charge; it appearing he moved for a new trial and to set aside the verdict on the ground it was contrary to law.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1516-1532; Dec. Dig. § 263.*]
McLennan, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Oswego County.
Action by Wallace M. Coble against R. H. McCarter Potter, in which defendant counterclaimed. From a judgment for plaintiff on both issues and an order denying his motion for new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and KRUSE, ROBSON, FOOTE, and LAMBERT, JJ.
Robert H. Southard, of New York City, for appellant.
W. M. Gallagher, of Cleveland (J. & W. M. Gallagher, of Cleveland, of counsel), for respondent.
For other eases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to Sate. & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
ROBSON, J.
Plaintiff's verdict was for the full amount of the unpaid balance of the purchase price of 12 cows sold and delivered by him to the defendant. The sale and delivery of these cows was admitted by defendant; but in his answer he alleged two counterclaims for damages for the breach of an alleged warranty of the condition of the cows, the purchase price of which plaintiff sought to recover in this action, and a like breach of warranty of the condition of another lot of cows previously sold and delivered to defendant by plaintiff, the purchase price of which had been previously paid to plaintiff. Plaintiff denied that any such warranty was made or existed. We think that a-fair question of fact as to whether the warranties alleged by defendant to have been made by plaintiff was presented on the evidence, and that the trial court properly submitted to the jury the determination of that issue.
Evidence was received tending to show that the cows in question were actually .of a value equal to or exceeding the price defendant agreed to pay for them. The court properly instructed the jury, among other things, in effect, that if defendant had failed to prove the warranties then plaintiff was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price then unpaid.
But the court further, erroneously as we think, charged the jury in effect that, if they-should find that the. cows bought by defendant of plaintiff were actually worth in the market the amount which defendant agreed to pay for them, then, even though the warranties claimed had been made and broken by plaintiff, defendant had suffered no damage, and no finding in his favor upon either of his counterclaims could be had. As thus instructed, the jury found for plaintiff the full amount of the unpaid purchase price. Whether the jury found that defendant had not established the warranties and their-breach, or, on the other hand, that he had failed to prove that he was damaged by plaintiff's breach of the warranties because the cows delivered were worth the price fpr which they had been sold, does not appear. On this record we cannot determine that the verdict was not based upon a finding due solely to the erroneous instruction of the court, to which attention has been called. Though defendant did not except to the charge as made, yet he did move to set aside the verdict and for a new trial upon the ground, among others, that the verdict was contrary to law. That motion having been denied, we may .still review on this appeal this question of law even in the absence of an exception. Lesin v. Shapiro, 147 App. Div. 100, 131 N. Y. Supp. 755; Standard Oil Co. v. Amazon Insurance Co., 79 N. Y. 506; Griebel v. Rochester Printing Co., 8 App. Div. 450, 40 N. Y. Supp. 759.
The judgment and order should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. All concur, except McLENNAN, P. J., who dissents in an opinion.