99 N.Y.S. 205 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1906
The plaintiff complained on a balance due for goods sold-and delivered; the defendant counterclaimed a demand for goods returned in excess of the quantity not paid for. The proof developed disputed questions of fact, the determination of which required a judgment either for the plaintiff or for the defendant on his counterclaim. At the close of the whole case the justice dismissed the complaint on the merits. Section 248 of the Municipal Court Act (Laws of 1902, chap. 580) provides for a dismissal without prejudice to a new action, and section 249, so far as material, provides: “ Judgment that the action be dismissed on the merits with costs may be rendered in the folowing cases: 1. Where, at the close of the whole case, the court is of the- opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover as a matter of law.”. It is plain that the dismissal “on. the merits” must have proceeded'on the theory that
Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and,Rich, JJ., concurred.
Judgment of -the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered-, costs to abide the event.