Legal Opinion
Trieper v. Bulkley & Horton Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided November 15, 1922PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtCropsey, J.
The plaintiff seeks to recover $100 damages .for fraud and deceit. He claims to have paid that sum to the defendants relying on their misrepresentations in connection with his *598proposed purchase of a house. The house was owned by a Mrs. Powers. The defendant Bulkley & Horton Company was the owner’s broker and had the house for sale. Defendant Dunne was its employee who had the transaction with the plaintiff. Accepting the plaintiff’s version there was no misrepresentation made. The most that plaintiff claims is that the defendant promised to return the deposit of $100, which he made in a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Adams v. . GilligNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- L'Amoreux v. . GouldNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Gotteberg v. Park Terrace Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- Siegel v. RosenzweigAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Gotteberg v. . Park Terrace CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rothman Realty Corp. v. BereckSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1977