Emery v. Langevin

173 A.D. 901, 157 N.Y.S. 1124

This text of 173 A.D. 901 (Emery v. Langevin) 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
Emery v. Langevin, 173 A.D. 901, 157 N.Y.S. 1124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

This court is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence in the case to require submission to the jury of the question of false and fraudulent representations by defendant McGinley as an inducing cause for the contract between plaintiff and defendant Langevin. As McGinley was the agent of Langevin, and the latter took the fruits of MeGinley’s activities, the principal is liable for whatever fraud the agent may have perpetrated in the transaction. (Taylor v. Commercial Bank,, 174 N. Y. 181; Mayers. Bean, 115 id. 556, 561.) The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed on reargument and a new trial is granted, costs to abide the event. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

Related

Taylor v. . Commercial Bank
66 N.E. 726 (New York Court of Appeals, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 A.D. 901, 157 N.Y.S. 1124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emery-v-langevin-nyappdiv-1916.