Arfman v. Hare

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Arfman v. Hare

27 Misc. 777, 57 N.Y.S. 759

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 27 Misc. 777 (Arfman v. Hare) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arfman v. Hare, 27 Misc. 777, 57 N.Y.S. 759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Freedman, P. J.

This action Was brought to recover damages for the alleged breach of warranty in the sale of a horse. The court below by its judgment decided all disputed questions of fact in favor'of the plaintiff. The court had a right to pass upon all questions of fact and its conclusion in this case cannot be said to be clearly against the weight of evidence. ' It must be assumed that the court decided that this defendant, at the time the mare in [778]*778question was offered for sale, and struck off to the plaintiff, represented and warranted her to he sound.

The defendant must be treated under all the facts and circumstances of this case as having been, the agent for the real owner, and having failed, as was determined by the trial court, to disclose his principal, he is,' therefore, liable in damages for such breach of warranty. Argersinger v. Macnaughton, 114 N. Y. 535; Cabre v. Sturges, 1 Hilt. 160.

Judgment must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Freedman, P. J.

This action Was brought to recover damages for the alleged breach of warranty in the sale of a horse. The court below by its judgment decided all disputed questions of fact in favor'of the plaintiff. The court had a right to pass upon all questions of fact and its conclusion in this case cannot be said to be clearly against the weight of evidence. ' It must be assumed that the court decided that this defendant, at the time the mare in [778]*778question was offered for sale, and struck off to the plaintiff, represented and warranted her to he sound.

The defendant must be treated under all the facts and circumstances of this case as having been, the agent for the real owner, and having failed, as was determined by the trial court, to disclose his principal, he is,' therefore, liable in damages for such breach of warranty. Argersinger v. Macnaughton, 114 N. Y. 535; Cabre v. Sturges, 1 Hilt. 160.

Judgment must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Misc. 777, 57 N.Y.S. 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arfman-v-hare-nyappterm-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack