Case ID: misc_31/html/0789-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Emilie Hoch, Respondent, v. Emma Goodhart, Appellant.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Eew York, third district, borough of Manhattan.
    Albert L. Phillips, for appellant.
    August P. Wagener, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The contract between the parties was made on Eovember 13, 1899, and although the plaintiff learned immediately of defendant’s alleged fraud, no attempt was made to dis-affirm the contract until the following January. Eot having elected to rescind promptly upon discovery of the fraud, the plaintiff must be deemed to have elected to affirm the contract (Hallahan v. Webber, 7 App. Div. 122), and she must be confined in her recovery to the damages sustained by reason of the fraud. Under the proofs, plaintiff cannot sue for the return of the purchase price.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.