
    Otto Timme, Trading as E. F. Timme & Son, Appellant, v. Leo Steinfeld et al., Respondents.
    
      Contract — sale — action to recover for breach of contract to purchase goods — mutual abandonment.
    
    
      Timme v. Steinfeld, 214 App. Div. 611, affirmed.
    (Argued November 24, 1926;
    decided December 31, 1926.)
    Appeal from a judgment entered January 4, 1926, -upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and directing a dismissal of the complaint. The action was to recover for an alleged breach of a contract to purchase goods. Delivery was to be made during January, February and March, 1920. Plaintiff delivered and defendants accepted part of the goods and on February 28, 1920, defendants' requested plaintiff to withhold further deliveries until further advised. Tender of the goods undelivered was not made until September 8, 1921. The Appellate Division held that in no event could the extension of the contract be regarded as for more than a reasonable time, and where both parties have ignored the existence of the contract for a period of over sixteen months, as a matter of law it is deemed to have been terminated by mutual abandonment.
    
      Douglass Newman and Aiken A. Pope for appellant.
    
      William Gilligan, Henry F. Wolff and Arthur L. Newman for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ.  