Schuylerville Wall Paper Co. v. American Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schuylerville Wall Paper Co. v. American Manufacturing Co.

272 A.D.2d 856

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

DecidedMay 14, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 856 (Schuylerville Wall Paper Co. v. American Manufacturing Co.) 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

Schuylerville Wall Paper Co. v. American Manufacturing Co., 272 A.D.2d 856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from .an order of the Supreme Court, Special Term, Saratoga County, which, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as to it. Defendant-appellant was a manufacturing corporation, and shipped, at the order of a jobber, wrapping twine direct to the plaintiff. It is alleged that the defendant-appellant knew the purpose for which the twine .was to be used. Because of tar, or some oily substance, on the twine, plaintiff’s rolls of paper were damaged. Plaintiff has sued in negligence. Defendant-appellant contends that as to liability on the ground of negligence it would only be liable for articles inherently dangerous to life .or limb' and cites MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (217 N. Y. 382) as an authority for that proposition. We do not think its liability is so limited, or that the case cited requires such a holding. Articles inherently dangerous to property are also included, at least where notice of a proposed use is shown. Order affirmed, with $25 costs. All concur. [See post, p. 980.]

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

Appeal from .an order of the Supreme Court, Special Term, Saratoga County, which, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as to it. Defendant-appellant was a manufacturing corporation, and shipped, at the order of a jobber, wrapping twine direct to the plaintiff. It is alleged that the defendant-appellant knew the purpose for which the twine .was to be used. Because of tar, or some oily substance, on the twine, plaintiff’s rolls of paper were damaged. Plaintiff has sued in negligence. Defendant-appellant contends that as to liability on the ground of negligence it would only be liable for articles inherently dangerous to life .or limb' and cites MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (217 N. Y. 382) as an authority for that proposition. We do not think its liability is so limited, or that the case cited requires such a holding. Articles inherently dangerous to property are also included, at least where notice of a proposed use is shown. Order affirmed, with $25 costs. All concur. [See post, p. 980.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schuylerville-wall-paper-co-v-american-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack