New York Court of Appeals, 1942

Rosenkranz v. Schreiber Brewing Co.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided January 15, 1942 · <italic>Per Curiam.</italic>

39 N.E.2d 257; 287 N.Y. 322; 1942 N.Y. LEXIS 1113 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

General Overseas Films, Ltd. v. Robin International, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1982)
Weiner v. Diebold Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Martin Roofing, Inc. v. Goldstein (N.Y. 1983)
B. & F. Leasing Co. v. Ashton Companies, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1973)
Antonio Altimari, Inc. v. Hochberg (Nassau County District Court 1969)
Culkin v. Smith (New York Supreme Court 1968)
Liebermann v. Princeway Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1962)
Devoe & Raynolds Co. v. Pell City Pipe & Foundry Co. (New York Supreme Court 1962)
Bassford v. Radsch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1958)
Builders Millwork Co. v. Nicolaysen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1953)
Bulkley v. Shaw (N.Y. 1942)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Whether Rudulph had authority to commit the defendant brewing company to the engagement on which plaintiff sued, and whether this engagement was an original undertaking to indemnify the plaintiff against a default of Edgewater Island Park, Inc., or was a special promise to answer for such a default and hence was within the statute of frauds (Pers. Prop. Law, § 31, subd. 2; Cons. Laws, ch. 41), were questions of fact and were properly left to the jury. (See 1 Mechem on The Law of Agency [2d ed.], § 296) Brown v. Weber, 38 N. Y. 187; Tighe v. Morrison, 116 N. Y. 263.) The question whether the agency alleged by the plaintiff was opposed to public policy is not presented by this record.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Trial Term affirmed, with costs in the Appellate Division and in this court.

Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur; Lehman, Ch. J., dissents and votes to affirm; Lewis, J., taking no part.

Judgment accordingly.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.