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

New York Court of Appeals

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

74 N.E.2d 475, 297 N.Y. 546, 1947 N.Y. LEXIS 1033

DecidedJuly 2, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 74 N.E.2d 475 (Hopkins v. Vita Food Prod., N. Grocery Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 N.E.2d 475, 297 N.Y. 546, 1947 N.Y. LEXIS 1033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkins-v-vita-food-prod-n-grocery-co-ny-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack