93 N.Y.S. 346 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1905
The facts' in this case appear to be that the plaintiff purchased of the defendant certain locust timber standing upon premises known as Oakwood', Port Jefferson, Suffolk county, paying therefor the gum of- $225,. This transaction- occurred in 1901, and the trees were not cut down and removed from the premises in October, 1902, at which timé the plaintiff was denied admission to the premises for the purpose of removing the. timber, the same having' been sold to a-third party. The'plaintiff brings this action to recover the- damages sustained by him by reason -of this transfer óf the premises, resulting in a breach of the Contract of sale: The jury has found a verdict for $600 damages, and from the judgment -entered upon such verdict the defendant appeals. . ' .
The only material question presented upon -this, appeal, fbr there' is practically no dispute'as to the.facts, is whether the plaintiff has established his case by competent evidence. The complaint alleges :' “Birst. That on or about the 14th day of February, 1901, at Setauket,
In support of plaintiff’s averment in reference to the contract of February 14, 1901, the following was introduced and received in evidence over the objection of the defendant that “ the complaint alleges that it is a common law action on a written contract; that this is merely his receipt for money. We set up the Statute of Frauds. Paper objected to ” :
Setauket, N. Y., Feb. 14, 1901.
“ Received from Thomas N. Bayles two hundred and twenty-five dollars for locust at Oakwood.
“ SELAH B. STRONG.”
This was supplemented by the testimony of the plaintiff, received without objection, that he gave the defendant $25 in money and a check for $200 at the time, and the check, with its indorsements, showing that the same had been paid was received in evidence, and the question presented is whether this constituted a sufficient writing to establish the existence of the contract alleged in the complaint. The learned court at Trial Term held that it did, and we
The judgment and order appealed from sliould be affirmed, with costs.
Hirschberg, P. J., Jenks, Rich and Miller, JJ„ concurred.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.