Epstein Coal Co. v. Solvinsky
Opinion of the Court
There is no legal basis for allowing the sec■ond counterclaim. Manifest error was committed in permitting testimony as to the probable amount of shortage in the receipt of 110 tons' of coal, and for which payment had been made as for full weight.
The mere fact that a janitor testified that, for the same period during ■one year, the same furnace, the same number of tenants, the same heating apparatus, and the same amount of steam were in use as in the succeeding year, would not justify the conclusion that the use of 35 tons per week during the succeeding year as against 30 tons per week in the previous year is proof that the coal delivered at the later
The circumstance that the two tons of coal weighed by the inspector of weights showed a shortage might raise a suspicion that coal theretofore delivered was also short in weight; but it is far from legal proof that such was the fact.
The evidence in support of the first counterclaim would be sufficient to uphold the finding of the court as to that claim, and if the respondent will stipulate to a modification of the judgment, by allowing the amount of plaintiff’s claim, with interest, less the amount of the second counterclaim, to wit, $20, the judgment, as modified, will be affirmed, without costs in this court to either party; otherwise, it will be reversed, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.