Frederick Loeser & Co. v. Diamond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frederick Loeser & Co. v. Diamond

222 A.D. 837

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D. 837 (Frederick Loeser & Co. v. Diamond) 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

Frederick Loeser & Co. v. Diamond, 222 A.D. 837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment and order reversed upon the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. We are of opinion that the trial justice erred in charging the jury, under the circumstances disclosed by the record, that the plaintiff might recover from defendant if they found that the articles purchased were necessaries, unless they believed that defendant had supplied his wife with ample funds for such necessaries. We are of opinion that the record shows that ample funds were supplied by the husband and that there can be no recovery for failure to furnish necessaries. As it is impossible to determine whether or not the jury found for plaintiff upon this ground, a new trial is required. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper and Carswell, JJ., concur; Rich, J., dissents.

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

— Judgment and order reversed upon the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. We are of opinion that the trial justice erred in charging the jury, under the circumstances disclosed by the record, that the plaintiff might recover from defendant if they found that the articles purchased were necessaries, unless they believed that defendant had supplied his wife with ample funds for such necessaries. We are of opinion that the record shows that ample funds were supplied by the husband and that there can be no recovery for failure to furnish necessaries. As it is impossible to determine whether or not the jury found for plaintiff upon this ground, a new trial is required. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper and Carswell, JJ., concur; Rich, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D. 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frederick-loeser-co-v-diamond-nyappdiv-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack