Jaroniec v. C. O. Hasselbarth, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
The sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action is involved in the appeal before us. The complaint alleges that the defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing mattresses; “ that on or about August 15, 1927, the plaintiff purchased a mattress made by the defendant and bearing the mark or stamp of the defendant and used said mattress for its proper purpose, that is to he on; * * * that said mattress manufactured by the defendant was improperly and negligently made in that it contained sharp points of metal such as are used on the carding machines which pick the filling…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Thomas v. . WinchesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Chysky v. . Drake Brothers Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Kuelling v. Roderick Lean Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Field v. Empire Case Goods Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Nifong v. C. C. Mangum, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
- Cullem v. M. H. Renken Dairy Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- Block v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1937
- Male v. Colgate Palm Olive Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1932
- Crist v. Art Metal WorksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.