Legal Opinion

Paul Gerli & Co. v. Mistletoe Silks Mills

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided June 16, 1910PublishedCited by 9 opinions

On rule to show cause.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Trenchard, J.

This is an action for the purchase price of a bale of raw silk delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant.

The defence is that it was sold as “best classical Italian silk for single weaving” and did not answer that description.

The defendant counterclaimed for profits lost and for expenses incurred in the attempt to weave the silk and recovered a verdict. Thereupon the plaintiff was allowed this rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside.

At the trial at the Hudson Circuit, no loss of profits was proved, but there was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Houser & Haines Manufacturing Co. v. McKayWashington Supreme Court · 1909

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Zabriskie Chevrolet, Inc. v. SmithNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1968
  2. Royce Chemical Company v. Sharples CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
  3. Marko v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1953
  4. Waldman Produce, Inc. v. Frigidaire Corp.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1935
  5. Sg Young, Inc. v. B. & C. Distributors Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API