Majestic Export Co. v. Katz & Greenfield, Inc.

248 A.D. 205, 288 N.Y.S. 941, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6113
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 23, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 248 A.D. 205 (Majestic Export Co. v. Katz & Greenfield, 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.

Bluebook
Majestic Export Co. v. Katz & Greenfield, Inc., 248 A.D. 205, 288 N.Y.S. 941, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon the trial of this action to recover damages for fraud and deceit in inducing plaintiff to enter into a contract with defendant, the proof showed that the transaction resulted in a net profit of $748.60 to plaintiff. Plaintiff, therefore, suffered no actual pecuniary damage, which is an essential element of an action for fraud.

Here the question with respect to damage is not what the plaintiff might have gained if the representation as to the property sold were true, but what it has lost by being deceived into making the purchase. Unlike a suit for breach of contract, the true measure of damage is indemnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong. All elements of profits are excluded. The purpose of the action is to indemnify the party injured. (Reno v. Bull, 226 N. Y. 546.)

The judgment for plaintiff should accordingly be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs, and judgment awarded to defendant on its counterclaim in the sum of $1,000.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs, and judgment awarded to defendant on its counterclaim in the sum of $1,000.

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

Related

Fezzani v. Dwecke
Second Circuit, 2019
Douglas L. Elliman & Co. v. Lantzounis
30 Misc. 2d 550 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Latin v. Walsh Supply Co.
10 A.D.2d 634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 A.D. 205, 288 N.Y.S. 941, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/majestic-export-co-v-katz-greenfield-inc-nyappdiv-1936.