Hewitt v. Silent Automatic Sales Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hewitt v. Silent Automatic Sales Corp.

238 A.D. 805

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D. 805 (Hewitt v. Silent Automatic Sales Corp.) 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

Hewitt v. Silent Automatic Sales Corp., 238 A.D. 805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the County Court of Westchester county reversing judgment of the City Court of New Rochelle and granting judgment for plaintiff, and judgment of the City Court of New Rochelle entered thereon, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered in the City Court of New Rochelle, costs to abide the event. On the trial the general authority of O’Hare, the branch manager, to make a contract of this nature was established. The admission of defendant’s Exhibit 1 in evidence was erroneous and constituted prejudicial error. The question of fact to be determined on the new trial is whether or not the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant for commissions. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Seudder and Davis, JJ., concur. ■

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

Order of the County Court of Westchester county reversing judgment of the City Court of New Rochelle and granting judgment for plaintiff, and judgment of the City Court of New Rochelle entered thereon, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered in the City Court of New Rochelle, costs to abide the event. On the trial the general authority of O’Hare, the branch manager, to make a contract of this nature was established. The admission of defendant’s Exhibit 1 in evidence was erroneous and constituted prejudicial error. The question of fact to be determined on the new trial is whether or not the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant for commissions. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Seudder and Davis, JJ., concur. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D. 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hewitt-v-silent-automatic-sales-corp-nyappdiv-1933.