Case Name: William Wallace et al., Resp'ts, v. Frederich D. Blake et al., App'lts
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-04-01
Citations: 23 N.Y. St. Rep. 65
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Wallace et al., Resp’ts, v. Frederich D. Blake et al., App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 23
Pages: 65–65

Head Matter:
William Wallace et al., Resp’ts, v. Frederich D. Blake et al., App’lts.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed April 1, 1889.)
Appeal — When leave to appeal to court of appeals not granted.
The questions whether or not the fact that one lot of goods is faulty raises a legal presumption that another and a different lot is also faulty, and whether a buyer is permitted to reject, without examination and without any proof that they are defective, goods that he has bought, whenever those goods happen to be in the custom house, are not of sufficient novelty and importance to justify the granting of an application to go to the court of appeals.
Oh motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
No good reason for allowing this case to .go to the court of appeals has been given.
We do not think it necessary to ask that court whether or not the fact that one lot of goods is faulty raises a legal presumption that another and a different lot is also faulty.
Nor do we think it necessary to ask whether a buyer is permitted to reject without examination, and without any proof that they are defective, goods that he has bought, whenever those goods happen to be in the custom house.
These two questions the appellant regards as of sufficient novelty and importance to entitle him to a certificate of this court that in the interest of the public the case should be considered by the court of last resort. We see no difficulty, no novelty, nor any importance in either of the questions, and therefore deny the application for leave to go to the court of appeals.