Ventimiglia v. Brockway Motor Truck Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ventimiglia v. Brockway Motor Truck Corp.

143 Misc. 681, 257 N.Y.S. 27, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1053

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 6, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 143 Misc. 681 (Ventimiglia v. Brockway Motor Truck Corp.) 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

Ventimiglia v. Brockway Motor Truck Corp., 143 Misc. 681, 257 N.Y.S. 27, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence of the parol negotiations preceding the execution of the written contract of sale was received exclusively upon the allegations of fraud. After the plaintiffs had elected not to proceed on the theory of fraud it was error to deny the defendant’s motion to strike out this testimony, thus allowing the jury to give it consideration for a purpose for which it was not received. Furthermore, such evidence was inadmissible to add a parol warranty of the truck for a special purpose to the written contract of sale. (Builders’ Brick & Supply Co. v. Walsh Transportation Co., Inc., 106 Misc. 460; affd., 189 App. Div. 898; Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y. 288.) The case is distinguishable from Hoisting Engine Sales Co. v. Hart (237 N. Y. 30), where the written contract contained express reference to the purpose for which the subject-matter of the contract was to be used. Since breach of warranty was the only issue submitted to the jury, judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Untermyer, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The evidence of the parol negotiations preceding the execution of the written contract of sale was received exclusively upon the allegations of fraud. After the plaintiffs had elected not to proceed on the theory of fraud it was error to deny the defendant’s motion to strike out this testimony, thus allowing the jury to give it consideration for a purpose for which it was not received. Furthermore, such evidence was inadmissible to add a parol warranty of the truck for a special purpose to the written contract of sale. (Builders’ Brick & Supply Co. v. Walsh Transportation Co., Inc., 106 Misc. 460; affd., 189 App. Div. 898; Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y. 288.) The case is distinguishable from Hoisting Engine Sales Co. v. Hart (237 N. Y. 30), where the written contract contained express reference to the purpose for which the subject-matter of the contract was to be used. Since breach of warranty was the only issue submitted to the jury, judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Untermyer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 Misc. 681, 257 N.Y.S. 27, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ventimiglia-v-brockway-motor-truck-corp-nyappterm-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack