Block v. Empire State Doughnut Corp.

233 A.D. 774
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1931·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order denying motion of defendant Bogner to dismiss amended complaint as against h'm reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and complaint as to him dismissed, with ten dollars costs. The mother was not acting as the agent of her child when she purchased the doughnuts, and consequently there was no privity of contract between the infant plaintiff and said defendant. (Redmond v. Borden’s Farm Products Co., Inc., 245 N. Y. 512; Smith v. Hanson, 228 App. Div. 634; Zotto v. Merkel Brothers, Inc., 229 id. 793.) Lazansky, P. J., Young and Scudder, JJ., concur; Davis, J., concurs in result upon the authorities cited but is not in accord with the principles stated; Carswell, J., dissents.

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

Block v. Empire State Doughnut Corp., 233 A.D. 774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

233 A.D. 774 (Block v. Empire State Doughnut Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Greenberg v. Lorenz
12 Misc. 2d 883 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
Parish v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
13 Misc. 2d 33 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1958)
Conklin v. Hotel Waldorf Astoria Corp.
5 Misc. 2d 496 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1957)
Dumbrow v. Ettinger
44 F. Supp. 763 (E.D. New York, 1942)