Hopkins v. Vita Food Prod., N. Grocery Co.

74 N.E.2d 475, 297 N.Y. 546, 1947 N.Y. LEXIS 1033
New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 2, 1947·Published

Opinion

Judgment modified by reversing so much thereof as permits recovery of $2,000 to plaintiff Addie Hopkins, and, as so modified, affirmed upon the ground that the evidence establishes that plaintiff wife was agent for plaintiff husband in purchasing the crab meat for the family and that, consequently, under the applicable law of New Jersey, the latter was the purchaser to whom alone the implied warranty of fitness runs. (See Stave v. Giant Food Arcade, 125 N. J. L. 512; Schlosser v. Goldberg, 123 N. J. L. 470; Auten v. Johnston, 115 N. J. L. 71, 75-76. See, also, Gimenez v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 264 N. Y. 390; Gearing v. Berkson, 223 Mass. 257; Hazelton v. First Nat. Stores, Inc., 88 N. H. 409.)

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacheb, Dye and Fuld, JJ.

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

Hopkins v. Vita Food Prod., N. Grocery Co., 74 N.E.2d 475, 297 N.Y. 546, 1947 N.Y. LEXIS 1033 (N.Y. 1947).

74 N.E.2d 475 (Hopkins v. Vita Food Prod., N. Grocery Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gimenez v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
191 N.E. 27 (New York Court of Appeals, 1934)
Gearing v. Berkson
223 Mass. 257 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)