Scozzari v. United Distillers Co.

222 A.D. 835

This text of 222 A.D. 835 (Scozzari v. United Distillers 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
Scozzari v. United Distillers Co., 222 A.D. 835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Opinion

Order, and judgment entered thereon, reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Defendant, having elected to rescind the contract upon plaintiff’s default, must return to plaintiff the amount he paid thereon. (Muller & Co. v. Effangee Tobacco Co., 190 App. Div. 808; affd., 229 N. Y. 594.) Our former decision in 217 Appella'te Division, 755, related to an examination of defendant by plaintiff to enable him to frame his complaint and was based upon- an entirely different record. We cannot consider the record on that appeal upon the appeal now before us. We are confined solely to a consideration of the allegations of the complaint and must determine whether it states a cause of action. In our opinion it does. Young, Rich, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur.

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

Related

H. Muller Company, Inc. v. . Effangee Tobacco Company
129 N.E. 922 (New York Court of Appeals, 1920)
H. Muller & Co. v. Effangee Tobacco Co.
190 A.D. 808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D. 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scozzari-v-united-distillers-co-nyappdiv-1928.