
    Grouse v. Wolf.
    (New York Common Pleas
    General Term,
    August, 1893.)
    In an action to recover the purchase money agreed to he paid upon the alleged sale and delivery of a truck, plaintiff’s testimony tended to show a sale on credit, and that some time after the delivery and acceptance of the truck, defendant offered to return it, and did in fact take it to plaintiff, who assumed possession and subsequently sold it to another. Held, that defendant’s acts constituted a rescission of the sale to plaintiff, and was a har to an action for the recovery of the purchase money.
    Also held, that if defendant had paid any sum on account, he was entitled to return thereof.
    Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff rendered by the District Court in the city of New York for the ninth judicial district.
    Action to recover the purchase money agreed to be paid upon the alleged sale and delivery of a truck by plaintiff to defendant.
    
      Goldsmith dh Doherty, for plaintiff (respondent).
    
      Mcmriee B. Blumenthal, for defendant (appellant).
   Bischoff, J.

As we understand plaintiff’s testimony it was to the effect that he sold and delivered a truck to defendant, which the latter accepted and for which he agreed to pay the sum of $150; that some time after the delivery and acceptance of the truck defendant offered to return it, and did in fact take it to the premises of L. Ullman & Co., where plaintiff assumed possession and subsequently again sold the truck to Cowperthwait & Co. for sixty dollars. This was all the evidence which was adduced on the trial, and a judgment for plaintiff thereon is clearly erroneous.

It was competent for the parties to rescind the sale of the truck by mutual agreement to that effect, and that they did so is indisputable from plaintiff’s admission that the truck was returned to him, and that he thereupon sold it to others. After such rescission plaintiff was not entitled to the purchase money which defendant had agreed to pay, and if the latter had paid any sum on account he was entitled to return thereof. Fulton v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 4 Misc. Rep. 76.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

G-iegerich, J., concurs.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered.  