Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Brickner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Brickner

162 A.D. 75, 147 N.Y.S. 147, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5948

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 17, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D. 75 (Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Brickner) 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

Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Brickner, 162 A.D. 75, 147 N.Y.S. 147, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Laughlin, J.:

This action and Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Ray (162 App. Div. 62) were tried together, and most of the material facts are the same in each.

In this case it appeared that the Searchlight Gas Company’s labels on the tanks sold by the defendant completely covered the word “ Prest-O-Lite ” appearing on the body of the tank, and it was represented by the employee of the defendant, who exchanged the tanks for the defendant in this instance, that he was delivering to the purchaser “ a Prest-O-Lite,” and on being asked where the name “ Prest-0 Lite ” appeared, he scratched off the label and revealed it. The decision of the case, therefore, is controlled by the views expressed in the opinion in the companion case, to which reference has been made, and on the authority of the decision in that case the determination of the Appellate Term is reversed, with costs to appellant, and the judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed and the complaint is dismissed, with costs.

Ingraham, P. J., and Scott, J., concurred; McLaughlin and Hotchkiss, JJ., dissented.

Determination and judgment reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts. Order to be settled on notice.

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

Laughlin, J.:

This action and Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Ray (162 App. Div. 62) were tried together, and most of the material facts are the same in each.

In this case it appeared that the Searchlight Gas Company’s labels on the tanks sold by the defendant completely covered the word “ Prest-O-Lite ” appearing on the body of the tank, and it was represented by the employee of the defendant, who exchanged the tanks for the defendant in this instance, that he was delivering to the purchaser “ a Prest-O-Lite,” and on being asked where the name “ Prest-0 Lite ” appeared, he scratched off the label and revealed it. The decision of the case, therefore, is controlled by the views expressed in the opinion in the companion case, to which reference has been made, and on the authority of the decision in that case the determination of the Appellate Term is reversed, with costs to appellant, and the judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed and the complaint is dismissed, with costs.

Ingraham, P. J., and Scott, J., concurred; McLaughlin and Hotchkiss, JJ., dissented.

Determination and judgment reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts. Order to be settled on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D. 75, 147 N.Y.S. 147, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prest-o-lite-co-v-brickner-nyappdiv-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack