Hoch v. Goodhart

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoch v. Goodhart

31 Misc. 789, 65 N.Y.S. 223

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Misc. 789 (Hoch v. Goodhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoch v. Goodhart, 31 Misc. 789, 65 N.Y.S. 223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The contract between the parties was made on Eovember 13, 1899, and although the plaintiff learned immediately of defendant’s alleged fraud, no attempt was made to dis-affirm the contract until the following January. Eot having elected to rescind promptly upon discovery of the fraud, the plaintiff must be deemed to have elected to affirm the contract (Hallahan v. Webber, 7 App. Div. 122), and she must be confined in her recovery to the damages sustained by reason of the [790]*790fraud. Under the proofs, plaintiff cannot sue for the return of the purchase price.

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

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

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

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

Per Curiam.

The contract between the parties was made on Eovember 13, 1899, and although the plaintiff learned immediately of defendant’s alleged fraud, no attempt was made to dis-affirm the contract until the following January. Eot having elected to rescind promptly upon discovery of the fraud, the plaintiff must be deemed to have elected to affirm the contract (Hallahan v. Webber, 7 App. Div. 122), and she must be confined in her recovery to the damages sustained by reason of the [790]*790fraud. Under the proofs, plaintiff cannot sue for the return of the purchase price.

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

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Misc. 789, 65 N.Y.S. 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoch-v-goodhart-nyappterm-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack