Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Harry Mamlok et al., Respondents, v. Richard L. Franklin, Receiver, etc., Appellant, 1875 — 65 N.Y. 556 · caselaw · US
General
Harry Mamlok et al., Respondents, v. Richard L. Franklin, Receiver, etc., Appellant
65 N.Y. 556·New York Commission of Appeals·1875·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Harry Mamlok et al., Respondents, v. Richard L. Franklin, Receiver, etc., Appellant.
(Argued October 11, 1874;
decided January term, 1875.)
This was an action upon a policy of insurance issued by the Yonkers and ETew York Fire Insurance Company, of which company defendant is receiver. The policy was upon a stock of goods. The policy stated the distance of the store containing them from other buildings near. The uncontradicted evidence, as the court construed it, showed that the distances to the buildings specified were less than stated in the policy. Held, that this was a breach of warranty, and that the trial court erred in refusing to nonsuit plaintiff.
Thos. Yowng for the appellant.
Chas. E. Winfield for the respondents.
[MAJORITY — Gray, C.,]
Gray, C.,
reads for reversal and new trial.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.