Stromberg v. Amelio
Stromberg v. Amelio
35 Misc. 826; 72 N.Y.S. 1131
Opinion of the Court
There is some confusion from the evidence arising from the use of the masculine pronoun in the plaintiff’s testimony; this may be from an error of the stenographer. There appeared on the trial that two watches were sold by the plaintiff, one to the defendant and another to a third person which was afterwards returned. There is no evidence that the watch sold to the defendant was ever returned, or the balance due therefor was ever paid.
Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.