Court Opinion

ID: 9864811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:12:36.55781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:02.099369
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Otto Bock
dissenting.
I regret the necessity of this dissent. The majority opinion designates this case as an “action on account for goods sold and delivered.” I am not familiar with such an action. It either is an action on an account stated or one for goods sold and delivered. Plaintiff designates it *68as an action for goods sold and delivered, and the pleadings support that statement.
After plaintiff had rested, defendant moved for a non-suit “upon the grounds that the plaintiff has wholly failed to sustain the proof and allegations of this complaint, for the reason that this purports to be an action for goods sold and delivered between a certain period, and that the evidence wholly fails to show delivery of any goods, wholly fails to show an agreed price, or the reasonable value; and for the further reason that the evidence wholly fails to prove a cause of action, either for merchandise sold and delivered, or upon an account stated.” This motion was denied and exceptions saved. Defendant elected to stand on its motion, and judgment was entered against it and in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $3,188.19.
It is stated in the majority opinion, “Defendant, in its answer, admitted purchasing the merchandise.” This, in my opinion, is an incorrect statement. Plaintiff, in its brief, referring to the answer of defendant, states correctly that “In its answer it admits that between the dates above mentioned the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant keg and bottled beer, ale and malt beverages,” and “Denies that Exhibit ‘A’ is a true and correct statement of the deliveries and charges for the keg and bottled beer, ale and malt beverages sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant.” In this state of the pleadings it was necessary for plaintiff to produce evidence of the sale and delivery of the merchandise listed in exhibit A. No such evidence was produced. The bookkeeper of plaintiff, who was the sole witness, had no personal knowledge of any deliveries; nor was there any evidence in writing, such as delivery receipts, from defendant. That the bookkeeper was a competent witness to testify under ’35 C.S.A., c. 177, §3, is true, but that testimony was insufficient to prove delivery of the goods, á vital issue in the case.
*69The majority opinion states what is purported to be defendant’s statement of the sole question involved. I quote the entire paragraph from defendant’s brief, as follows: “The sole question which we desire to present Upon this proceeding is whether or not the testimony of plaintiff’s witness, Mr. Koller, the lédger sheets and sales slips, were sufficient and competent to establish a prima facie case against the defendant and to justify the overruling of the motion for nonsuit and the entry of judgment in the amount stated.”
The motion for nonsuit was predicated primarily on the ground that the evidence wholly failed to prove a cause of action either for merchandise sold and delivered or for an account stated. The trial court committed error in denying the motion for a nonsuit.
The judgment should be reversed.