Legal Opinion

Henningsen v. MarkoWitz

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 19, 1928PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSherman, J.

The complaint unites the infant’s causé of action for damages for personal injuries with his father’s action for damages for loss of his services. The issues were submitted, under the usual stipulation, to the court without a jury. A few days before Christmas, 1924, Richard Kevans, then thirteen years of age, entered defendant’s store and purchased from defendant personally an air rifle and B B shot to be used as ammunition. In mating this sale, defendant violated section 1896 of the Penal Law (as *548amd. by Laws of 1911, chap. 195), which forbids the sale to an infant under the age of sixteen…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ryan v. . New York Central RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
  2. Hartnett v. Boston StoreIllinois Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Marino v. . LehmaierNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  4. Pittsburg Reduction Co. v. HortonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
  5. Carter v. TowneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Neff Lumber Co. v. First National BankOhio Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Rubin v. JohnsonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1990
  3. Daggett v. KeshnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
  4. K-Mart Enterprises of Fla., Inc. v. KellerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  5. Zamora Ex Rel. Zamora v. J. Korber & Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1954

12 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