Legal Opinion

Race v. Krum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 15, 1914PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Motion for a reargument. (See 162 App. Div. 911.)

1Per curiam

Upon the motion for reargument the defendant first argues that the admission in the answer of the warranty alleged in the complaint was not intended as an admission of an express warranty, but was intended simply as an admission of an implied warranty. Whatever construction might otherwise be given to the pleadings, it was evidently assumed upon the trial, as is claimed by the defendant, and the construction given to the pleadings upon the trial, both by the court and by coun*925sel, should be the construction which this court will adopt in determining the appeal. It is further urged that an…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Flessher v. Carstens Packing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Valeri v. Pullman Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1914
  3. Leahy v. Essex Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
  4. Hubbard v. Rockaway Lunch Co.New York Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Callanan Industries, Inc. v. FrettoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API