Legal Opinion
Frankel v. Foreman & Clark, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided June 3, 1929No. 162PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAugustus N. Hand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). There can be no doubt that the charge as to the burden of proof was erroneous as to both causes of action. .
The first cause of action was to recover the purchase price, and was founded upon the theory that the title to the 170 coats had passed to the buyer. Section 125 (3) and (4) of the New York Personal Property Law (Consol. Laws, c. 41) provides that:
“3. Where the seller delivers to the buyer the goods he contracted to sell mixed with goods of a different description not included in the contract, the buyer may accept the goods which are in accordance…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Pope v. AllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Baltzer v. Raleigh & Augusta RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Portfolio v. . RubinNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Henry Glass & Co. v. MisrochNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- G. R. Bianchi Granite Co. v. Terre Haute Monument Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1917
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Corker v. SoperCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1931
- John Fabick Tractor Company v. Lizza & Sons, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Alper Blouse Co. v. E. E. Connor & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1955
- Cervitor Kitchens, Inc. v. ChapmanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1972
- Knudsen Music Co. v. MastersonUtah Supreme Court · 1952
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.