Rinschler v. Jeliffe
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from a judgment of the district court in the city of Hew York for the tenth judicial district. The action was brought to recover damages from, a sale of spoiled and unmerchantable veal by defendants, commission merchants in West Washington Market, to plaintiff, a retail meat dealer in One hundred and forty-eighth street and Third avenue.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the district court in the city of Hew York for the tenth judicial district. The action was brought to recover damages from, a sale of spoiled and unmerchantable veal by defendants, commission merchants in West Washington Market, to plaintiff, a retail meat dealer in One hundred and forty-eighth street and Third avenue. The calves, ten in number, were purchased on Friday, May 7th, 1880, at about 8 o’clock, a. m., at West Washington Market, by plaintiff from defendants, at seven cents a pound. They were selected by plaintiff from others hanging in the stall. There was…
1Opinion of the CourtJ. F. Daly, J.
[After stating the facts as above.] There was no implied warranty that the meat was sound. It was not sold to a consumer but to a dealer, to be sold again (Hyland v. Sherman, 2 E. D. Smith, 238). There was no fraud on the part of the vendor, and no warranty, and the sale was executed. In such cases the buyer takes all the risks if he have an opportunity to inspect the goods. If he would be protected against latent defects he should require a warranty (Waring v. Mason, 18 Wend. 425; Wright v. Hart, Id. 449, 453; Swett v. Colgate, 20 Johns. 196; Moses v. Mead, 1 Denio, 378; Beirne v. Dord, 5 N.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Moses v. MeadCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- Swett v. ColgateNew York Supreme Court · 1822
- Beirne and Burnside v. . DordNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cotton v. Reed, New York County Courts1898
- Wart v. Hoose, New York County Courts1909
- Wart v. HooseNew York County Court, Otsego County · 1909