
    Gumbinsky Bros. Company, Respondent, v. Arthur Smalley et al., Copartners Trading as Edwin Butterworth & Co., Appellants.
    
      Contract — sale — action for breach of contract of sale — defense that quality was unsatisfactory.
    
    
      Gumbinsky Bros. Co. v. Smalley, 203 App. Div. 661, affirmed.
    (Argued March 21, 1923;
    decided April 17, 1923.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 26, 1922, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The action was to recover for breach of contract for the purchase of paper stock. The defense was that the quality of the stock shipped under the contract was unsatisfactory.
    
      Abel E. Blaclcmar and Charles D. Ridgway for appellants.
    
      I. Maurice Wormser, Leonard AcJcer and Joseph Dannenburg for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

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