Janisch v. Root
265 A.D. 906, 38 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6423
Opinion
Memorandum: The finding of the jury that the defendant procured the stock by fraud is not supported by the evidence. Moreover, the measure of damages adopted on the trial was not the proper one. (Hobaica v. Byrne, 216 App. Div. 307.) All concur. (The judgment affirms a judgment of the Dunkirk City Court in favor of plaintiff in an action for damages sustained by reason of fraud and misrepresentation.) Present— Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and McCurn, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Janisch v. Root, 265 A.D. 906, 38 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).
265 A.D. 906 (Janisch v. Root) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hobaica v. Byrne
216 A.D. 307 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1926)