Case Name: G. R. SHEPARD ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. v. SPOFFORD
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-11-29
Citations: 96 N.Y.S. 206
Docket Number: 
Parties: G. R. SHEPARD ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. v. SPOFFORD.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 96
Pages: 206–207

Head Matter:
G. R. SHEPARD ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. v. SPOFFORD.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
November 29, 1905.)
Appeal—Review oe Facts.
A finding of the trial justice upon conflicting testimony will be sustained on appeal.
[Eel. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 3, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, §§ 3983-3989.]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, -Sixth District.
Action by the G. -R. Shepard Engineering & Construction Company against-Charles Spofford. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
. Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GILDERSLFFVF and MacLFAN, JJ.
Henry J. McClelland, for appellant.
Thomas A. Stoddart, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The only question in the case is one of fact, upon which there was a conflict of evidence. One Mardorf purchased of the defendant a quantity of tools, machinery, drills, etc., and subsequently sold the property to the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that the sale did not include a certain tool called a "dividing head." Pie brought a replevin action against Mardorf, and Mardorf claimed that he had sold the tool to these plaintiffs. The replevin action was subsequently dismissed, leaving the tool in the defendant's possession, but the ownership in question. "Plaintiff thereupon demanded the tool of the defendant, and upon his refusal brought this ac tion. The question at issue was whether the sale from 'defendant to Mardorf included this dividing head or not. The justice found in favor of the plaintiff upon conflicting testimony, and his decision should stand.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.