Campanella v. Bono, 423.

• Citation: 120 N.J.L. 435,200 A. 544
• Decision Date: 07 July 1938
• Docket Number: No. 423.,423.
• Parties: CAMPANELLA et al. v. BONO et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

200 A. 544

120 N.J.L. 435

CAMPANELLA et al.

v. BONO et al.

No. 423.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

July 7, 1938.

Appeal from Second Judicial Court, Bergen County; James S. Ely, Judge.

Suit for price of goods sold and delivered by John Campanella and others, copartners trading as S. Campanella & Sons, against Guilio Bono and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued May term, 1938, before TRENCHARD, PARKER, and PERSKIE, JJ.

Daniel Figurelli, and Quirinus A. Ricciardelli, all of Jersey City, for appellants. William V. Breslin, of Lyndhurst, and Henry J. Bendheim, of Englewood, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

>

This was a suit for the price of goods sold and delivered. The defence was that the sales were not to the defendants individually but to a corporation called Boni Macaroni Company. At the trial plaintiffs admitted that they had sold certain other goods to that company but that a check given by it came back dishonored and thereafter plaintiffs had refused to sell except to the individual defendants. The issue of fact was whether the goods covered by the state of demand were so sold. The trial judge, sitting without jury, decided that plaintiffs had not proved sale to the defendants, and accordingly found in their favor. Plaintiffs appeal.

There are eight specifications of alleged error, but only the following are presented in the brief:

1. Refusal of the court to admit in evidence a paper described in the state of the case as "a single ledger sheet from an original book of entry purporting to show the account of the defendants as individuals with the plaintiffs." This is claimed to be error; but we are in no position to determine the point as it is not reproduced in the state of the case nor was it even marked for identification, so far as appears. If it was simply a ledger sheet, it was of course properly excluded, not being accompanied by the day book or anything corresponding thereto. Bonnell v. Mawha, 37 N. J.L. 198.

2. It is argued that a certain delivery receipt, printed as "Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1" and received in evidence, is persuasive if net convincing evidence of sale to defendants personally; but we are not impressed by the argument. It reads in part "Deliver to G. Bono & Siccardi" certain specified merchandise and at the foot reads "Rec'd by" and then "Driver Giulio Bono

"Checked by —."

As evidence of a sale to Bono, it has little or no value, and as to Siccardi, none at all, in absence of proof of...