MacCambridge v. Roth

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

MacCambridge v. Roth

144 N.Y.S. 626

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 16, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 144 N.Y.S. 626 (MacCambridge v. Roth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MacCambridge v. Roth, 144 N.Y.S. 626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

GUY, J.

Plaintiff sues to recover the purchase price of- a brace, which defendants sold to plaintiff under a warranty. Within a week of the time fixed for the expiration of the warranty, the plaintiff asked the defendants to fix the brace, although the defendants had frequently repaired the brace previous to that time. When this request was first made, the defendants asked payment for fixing it, but immediately thereafter did repair it and tender it to the plaintiff, who refused to accept it. The basis of»the action'is a rescission of the contract, but in view of the fact that the brace was repaired by defendants and tendered to the plaintiff, this was not such a breach of the contract as justified a rescission. Callanan v. K. A. C. & L. C. R. R. Co., 199 N. Y. 269-284, 92 N. E. 747.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

SEABURY, J., concurs. BIJUR, J., took no part.

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

GUY, J.

Plaintiff sues to recover the purchase price of- a brace, which defendants sold to plaintiff under a warranty. Within a week of the time fixed for the expiration of the warranty, the plaintiff asked the defendants to fix the brace, although the defendants had frequently repaired the brace previous to that time. When this request was first made, the defendants asked payment for fixing it, but immediately thereafter did repair it and tender it to the plaintiff, who refused to accept it. The basis of»the action'is a rescission of the contract, but in view of the fact that the brace was repaired by defendants and tendered to the plaintiff, this was not such a breach of the contract as justified a rescission. Callanan v. K. A. C. & L. C. R. R. Co., 199 N. Y. 269-284, 92 N. E. 747.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

SEABURY, J., concurs. BIJUR, J., took no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 N.Y.S. 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maccambridge-v-roth-nyappterm-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack