Mesick v. Polk
70 N.E.2d 169, 296 N.Y. 673, 1946 N.Y. LEXIS 1248
Opinion
Order reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts, and question certified answered in the negative, on the ground that there was no duty upon a mere vendor to warn the ultimate purchaser against exposure of the capsule to heat. No opinion.
Concur: Desmond, Thacher, Dye and Fuld, JJ. Dissenting: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis and Conway, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mesick v. Polk, 70 N.E.2d 169, 296 N.Y. 673, 1946 N.Y. LEXIS 1248 (N.Y. 1946).
70 N.E.2d 169 (Mesick v. Polk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sparling v. Podzielinski
32 Misc. 2d 227 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Solazzo v. Occhino
4 Misc. 2d 630 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)