Bauer v. Blaha
Bauer v. Blaha
88 N.Y.S. 933
(New York Supplement)
Opinion of the Court
The memorandum on the back of the bill contained only the amount of flour- agreed to be sold and the price. It was silent as to the terms of payment. Plaintiff was therefore entitled to demand cash on delivery, and to refuse to make deliveries until bills previously incurred had been paid. The defendant makes but a feeble and unconvincing denial of the story told by plaintiff.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.