Pennsylvania & Delaware Oil Co. v. Spitelnik
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Appeal from a judgment, in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhat-' tan, second district.
1Opinion of the CourtLeventritt, J.
The plaintiff recovéred judgment for the purchase price of a number of barrels of paint and blending oils sold and delivered to the defendants. The transaction was consum-. mated through a salesman, who represented that the oils would dry in twenty-foiir hours. Mo evidence was introduced to show that he had authority to warrant, or that ,a warranty usually and customarily attended the sale of such oils. In the absence of that proof the defendants’ counterclaim resting on the plea of the breach of an express warranty must fail.
It is a well-recognized principle in the law of sales that an agent…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Smith v. . TracyNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Bierman v. . City Mills Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Wait v. . BorneNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Hooper v. . StoryNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Heye v. BollesNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1867
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- International Harvester Co. v. LawyerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Piller v. PiserNew York Supreme Court · 1910