New York Supreme Court, 1892

Prentiss Tool & Supply Co. v. Schirmer

Prentiss Tool & Supply Co. v. Schirmer
New York Supreme Court · Decided February 8, 1892 · Pratt
17 N.Y.S. 662; 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 20; 63 Hun 628; 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 444 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

William Romer, (Ralph E. Prime, of counsel,) for appellant. John M. Perry, for respondent.

Prentiss Tool & Supply Co. v. Schirmer

Opinion of the Court

Pratt, J.

There was no error of law committed upon the trial. It does not follow that, because one party makes a charge of fraud against another, there must be a question for a jury. Fraud is a question of fact; but to go before the jury there must be legal evidence, and whether such evidence exists, and, if it does, whether of sufficient weight to sustain a verdict, is a question for the court. The court below propeily refused to submit the question to the jury. There is no foundation for the claim that the instrument was a mortgage. The goods were sold to pay a precedent debt, and it was not difficult for counsel, but putting the words into the mouth of the witness, to get him to say he received them as “security for á debt.” There was no possibility of a surplus. The transaction was a sale, and not a mortgage.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.