AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

MILLER BROS. HAT COMPANY, Appellant, v. A.D. SMITH SONS COMPANY, Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff made out a prima facie case of breach of contract for the sale of goods. On the facts, the complaint should not have been dismissed, but the jury should have been permitted to pass on the question whether the delivery of the samples was referable to the principal order and in recognition and part performance thereof.

The practice of submitting photostatic copies of exhibits unaccompanied by printed copies thereof is condemned and a repetition of the offense will lead to the rejection of the record.

The judgment should be reversed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

HISCOCK, Ch. J., CARDOZO, POUND, McLAUGHLIN, CRANE and ANDREWS, JJ., concur; LEHMAN, J., not sitting.

Judgments reversed, etc.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MILLER BROS. HAT COMPANY v. A.D. SMITH SONS COMPANY
(Feb 19, 1924)