Commercial Factors Corp. v. M. & M. Hat Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commercial Factors Corp. v. M. & M. Hat Co.

251 A.D. 258, 296 N.Y.S. 134, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6906

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 28, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D. 258 (Commercial Factors Corp. v. M. & M. Hat Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commercial Factors Corp. v. M. & M. Hat Co., 251 A.D. 258, 296 N.Y.S. 134, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There was sufficient evidence to present an issue of fact with respect to the authority of the salesman Rafelson (1) to make the warranties in the first instance, and (2) to agree to the alleged adjustment with the defendant after the latter’s protest. The fact that after the alleged adjustment certain of the goods were taken back by plaintiff’s assignor and a credit allowed, tends to support the defendant’s claim of authority in Rafelson, or at' least a ratification of his acts, by plaintiff’s assignor. It was error, therefore, to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The issues raised by the defenses and counterclaims should have been submitted to the jury.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.; Dore and Cohn, JJ., dissent.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

There was sufficient evidence to present an issue of fact with respect to the authority of the salesman Rafelson (1) to make the warranties in the first instance, and (2) to agree to the alleged adjustment with the defendant after the latter’s protest. The fact that after the alleged adjustment certain of the goods were taken back by plaintiff’s assignor and a credit allowed, tends to support the defendant’s claim of authority in Rafelson, or at' least a ratification of his acts, by plaintiff’s assignor. It was error, therefore, to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The issues raised by the defenses and counterclaims should have been submitted to the jury.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.; Dore and Cohn, JJ., dissent.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D. 258, 296 N.Y.S. 134, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commercial-factors-corp-v-m-m-hat-co-nyappdiv-1937.