
    BAUER v. BLAHA.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June 23, 1904.)
    1. Sales—Conditions—Cash Payment.
    Where a memorandum oí sale contained only the amount and the price, and was silent as to terms, plaintiff was entitled to demand cash on delivery and to refuse to make delivery until bills previously incurred had been paid.
    K1. See Sales, vol. 43, Cent. Dig. § 230.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.
    Action by Samuel Bauer against William Blaha. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and SCOTT, JJ.
    Hymes, Woytisek & Schaap, for appellant.
    Thomas W. McKnight, for respondent.
   SCOTT, J.

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.  