Stone v. Devlin

Decided March 2, 1891

The Superior Court of New York City · decided 1891-03-02

<p>Sale—Parties.</p> <p>Where the evidence when the plaintiff rests is such that the jury could properly find a sale and delivery of the goods in suit to defendant, and does not show that one R. was his partner, a refusal to dismiss on the ground of the non-joinder of R. as a party is proper.</p>

Decided 1891-03-02

Dugro, J.

¶1This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, and an order denying a motion for a new trial upon the minutes.

¶2When the plaintiff rested his case, there was evidence from which the jury could properly conclude that the materials in suit were sold and delivered to the defendant, and that he was justly indebted to the plaintiff for the amount of the verdict.

¶3The plaintiff’s case did not show that Rutherford was defendant’s partner.

¶4 *371The charge presented the question at issue fully and fairly, and was subject to no valid exception.

¶5The judgment and order should be affirmed.

¶6•Truax, J., concurs.