Rossano v. Kaminsky

134 N.Y.S. 895
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedApril 16, 1912
StatusPublished

This text of 134 N.Y.S. 895 (Rossano v. Kaminsky) 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
Rossano v. Kaminsky, 134 N.Y.S. 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiffs certainly made out a prima facie case of the purchase of vinegar from defendants, introducing the bill receipted by defendants, and showed that the vinegar had been inspected by officers of the state government and found below test, whereupon plaintiffs were sued by the state for the appropriate penalty, and compromised for $50. They further showed that they had notified defendants of the pendency of the action and afforded defendants an [896]*896opportunity to defend the same. Under the circumstances, plaintiffs are to recover. Friedgood v. Kline, 67 Misc. Rep. 428, 123 N. Y. Supp. 247.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.

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

Related

Friedgood v. Kline
67 Misc. 428 (New York Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 N.Y.S. 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rossano-v-kaminsky-nyappterm-1912.