
    LEFF v. PANSICK et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    November 3, 1915.)
    Sales <§=181—Action fob Pbice—Evidence—Delivery. On a counterclaim for the purchase price of coats, evidence held to require a finding that they had been delivered. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 473-491; Dec. Dig. <§=181J
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.
    Action by Joseph Leif against Joseph Pansick and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, dismissing defendant’s counterclaim on the merits, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
    Argued October term, 1915, before BIJUR, PAGF, and SHFARN, JJ.
    A. B. Schleimer, of New York City, for appellants.
    Joseph Krinsky, of New York City, for respondent.
   SHEARN, J.

Defendants’ counterclaim was for two- deliveries of coats alleged to have been manufactured by them and delivered to the plaintiff. The only issue was as to the delivery, which was contested by the plaintiff in the face of two- signed receipts for the goods. To overcome the receipts, the trial court permitted plaintiff to introduce in evidence his own books, showing that they.contained no entry of the receipt of the goods.

The judgment must therefore be reversed, and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.  