Kreiwaitis v. New York Canners, Inc.
This text of 199 A.D. 909 (Kreiwaitis v. New York Canners, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. Held, the fair meaning of the court’s charge was that the plaintiff could recover unless there had been a general frost [910]*910in the locality of his farm, which had injured his tomatoes. We think such charge placed too narrow a construction on the contract in question. The question which should have been submitted to the jury was whether or not, there had been a general frost which had injured tomatoes generally in the community from which the defendant received tomatoes for its factory. All concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
199 A.D. 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kreiwaitis-v-new-york-canners-inc-nyappdiv-1921.