Zotto v. Merkel Bros.
229 A.D. 793
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1930·Published·Cited by 6 cases
Opinion
Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Plaintiff was not acting as the agent of his wife, the intestate, when he purchased the pork and there is consequently no privity of contract between the intestate and defendant. (Chysky v. Drake Brothers Co., 235 N. Y. 468; Redmond v. Borden’s Farm Products Co., Inc., 245 id. 512; Turner v. Edison Storage Battery Co., 248 id. 73; Smith v. Hanson, 228 App. Div. 634.) Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Hagarty and Scudder, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Zotto v. Merkel Bros., 229 A.D. 793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).
229 A.D. 793 (Zotto v. Merkel Bros.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Greenberg v. Lorenz
12 Misc. 2d 883 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
Parish v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
13 Misc. 2d 33 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1958)
Greenberg v. Lorenz
14 Misc. 2d 279 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1957)
Welch v. Schiebelhuth
11 Misc. 2d 312 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Conklin v. Hotel Waldorf Astoria Corp.
5 Misc. 2d 496 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1957)
Dumbrow v. Ettinger
44 F. Supp. 763 (E.D. New York, 1942)