From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zotto v. Merkel Brothers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1930
229 App. Div. 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 1930)

Opinion

May, 1930.


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.


Summaries of

Zotto v. Merkel Brothers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1930
229 App. Div. 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 1930)
Case details for

Zotto v. Merkel Brothers, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ROCCO ZOTTO, as Administrator, etc., of VERNARNDA ZOTTO, Deceased…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 1, 1930

Citations

229 App. Div. 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 1930)

Citing Cases

Welch v. Schiebelhuth

n uncompromising rule and as a result "The assault upon the citadel of privity" has rapidly developed (…

Parish v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

It is stoutly maintained that the infants cannot sue for breach of warranty in the absence of a contractual…