Legal Opinion

Kaufmann v. Delafield

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

Decided June 15, 1928PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

Under the favorable inference rule upon a non-suit we must find that there was sufficient proof of a cause of action for fraudulent representations made out against defendant, which, undenied, would justify a recovery. This was properly so held at the trial. The cause was dismissed because of an alleged lack of damage proof, as the court viewed the evidence. We think that a sufficient showing of damage appeared to make a question for the jury as to its amount. Certainly a ruling that since plaintiff bought at market, he might also have immediately or soon thereafter sold at market for the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hotaling v. A. B. Leach & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Valencia v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Primavera Familienstifung v. AskinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2001
  3. EF Hutton & Co. v. HeimSupreme Court of Kansas · 1985
  4. Letson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1982
  5. Davis v. First Interstate Bank of Idaho, N.A.Idaho Supreme Court · 1988

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API