
    ANDERSON v. WATSON-STILLMAN CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    July 1, 1910.)
    Sales (§ 428)—Set-Off—Breach of Warranty.
    In an action to recover for goods sold, a breach of Implied warranty having been proven, the defendant was entitled to set off the amount of the damages for such breach.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 1214^-1223; Dec. Dig. 5 428.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
    Action by Jacob I. Anderson against the Watson-Stillman Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Judgment modified, to" allow defendant’s claim of set-off; otherwise, affirmed.
    Argued before SEABURY, GUY, and BIJUR, JJ.
    Wingate & Cullen, for appellant.
    Samuel H. Kunstlich, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dee. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   GUY, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover a balance alleged to be due for goods sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant. Defendant claims a set-off of $28.14 for breach of warranty as to certain of the goods alleged to have been furnished by plaintiff.

An implied warranty is established under the authorities, and the evidence is sufficient to show a breach thereof. The defendant was entitled, therefore, to set off the damages proven by reason of the breach, which amount to $28.14. In all other respects, the judgment is supported by the law and the evidence.

The judgment should therefore be modified, reducing the amount thereof to $72.13, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. All concur.  