J. Aron Company, Inc. v. Sills

New York Court of Appeals

J. Aron Company, Inc. v. Sills

148 N.E. 717, 240 N.Y. 588, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 817

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 31, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 148 N.E. 717 (J. Aron Company, Inc. v. Sills) 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

J. Aron Company, Inc. v. Sills, 148 N.E. 717, 240 N.Y. 588, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 817 (N.Y. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

*589 Per Curiam,.

This judgment must be affirmed. Doubtless the purpose for which these goods were required was at least by implication made known to the seller. Whether under the circumstances of this particular purchase any inference is possible that the buyer relied upon the seller’s skill or judgment we deed not decide. For even were the trial court in error as to the existence of an implied warranty that the goods in question were fit for human consumption, bought as they were by description from one who dealt in them, there was a warranty that they were of merchantable quality. If condensed milk is unfit for consumption, clearly it does not comply with this warranty. The seller may not complain if the jury is told that a warranty exists more limited in its scope than in truth is the fact.

His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

*589 Per Curiam,.

This judgment must be affirmed. Doubtless the purpose for which these goods were required was at least by implication made known to the seller. Whether under the circumstances of this particular purchase any inference is possible that the buyer relied upon the seller’s skill or judgment we deed not decide. For even were the trial court in error as to the existence of an implied warranty that the goods in question were fit for human consumption, bought as they were by description from one who dealt in them, there was a warranty that they were of merchantable quality. If condensed milk is unfit for consumption, clearly it does not comply with this warranty. The seller may not complain if the jury is told that a warranty exists more limited in its scope than in truth is the fact.

His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 N.E. 717, 240 N.Y. 588, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-aron-company-inc-v-sills-ny-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack