Malsby v. Jackson & Tindle, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malsby v. Jackson & Tindle, Inc.

256 A.D. 887, 9 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5241

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 5, 1939·Published

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We agree with the conclusion reached by the Special Term that the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury that defendant expressly warranted that the cylinder or discs of the machine which defendant sold to plaintiff were made of cast steel and not semi-steel. All concur. (The judgment reverses a judgment of the Buffalo City Court and grants a new trial in an action for breach of warranty.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ,

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We agree with the conclusion reached by the Special Term that the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury that defendant expressly warranted that the cylinder or discs of the machine which defendant sold to plaintiff were made of cast steel and not semi-steel. All concur. (The judgment reverses a judgment of the Buffalo City Court and grants a new trial in an action for breach of warranty.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ,

Malsby v. Jackson & Tindle, Inc., 256 A.D. 887, 9 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

256 A.D. 887 (Malsby v. Jackson & Tindle, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.