Case Name: Thomas Adams & Co. (Limited), Resp'ts, v. Saly I. Mayer et al., App'lts
Court: New York Superior Court General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-01-05
Citations: 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 83
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Adams & Co. (Limited), Resp’ts, v. Saly I. Mayer et al., App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 36
Pages: 83–83

Head Matter:
Thomas Adams & Co. (Limited), Resp’ts, v. Saly I. Mayer et al., App’lts.
(New York Superior Court, General Term,
Filed January 5, 1891.)
Sale—Acceptance .
Plaintiffs, in pursuance of a contract, shipped certain goods to defendants, which were warehoused by them and so retained for three years, although they notified plaintiffs that they could not use them, but would accept them at a less price than that named in the contract. Held, following former opinion in 56 N. T. Supr. Ct., 572; 23N. Y. State Rep., 193, that a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for the purchase price was not against the weight of evidence.
Appeal from judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs upon the verdict of a j ury, and from order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.
Action to recover the sum of $735.14 for goods claimed to have been sold and delivered to defendants pursuant to the terms of a contract.
David Leventritt, for app’lts; W. W. MacFarland, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The issues in this case have been retried in conformity with the decision of this court upon the former appeal as reported in 56 N. Y. Supr. Ct., 572; 23 N. Y. State Rep., 198.
Upon a review of the case as now presented none of the exceptions taken constitutes, when all the circumstances are considered, sufficient ground for reversal, nor can it be held that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
Sedgwick, Oh. J., and Freedman, J., concur.