Legal Opinion
Gould v. Flato
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 25, 1938PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShientag, J.
This is an action in fraud brought to recover damages for alleged misrepresentations inducing the purchase of a pearl necklace. The complaint contained two causes of action, both sounding in fraud, one for damages and the other for rescission. The plaintiff at the trial elected to proceed on the first cause of action and he abandoned the second. No cause of action for breach of warranty or negligence was stated.
In November, 1927, the plaintiff purchased from the defendants for $47,000 a pearl necklace, consisting of sixty-seven matched Oriental pearls. At the time of the sale the pearls…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Glanzer v. . ShepardNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Reno v. . BullNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Southern Development Co. v. SilvaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- International Products Co. v. Erie R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Hadcock v. . OsmerNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Nanfito v. TEKSEED HYBRID COMPANYDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1972
- Risser v. HirshhornCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952
- Chiodo v. GarramoneNew York Supreme Court · 1958
- Labasin v. President Realty Holding Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961