History
  • No items yet
midpage
Mesick v. Polk
296 N.Y. 673
NY
1946
Check Treatment

Order reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts, and question certified answered in the negative, on the ground that there was no duty upon a mere vendor to warn the ultimate purchaser against exposure of the capsule to heat. No opinion.

Concur: DESMOND, THACHER, DYE and FULD, JJ. Dissenting: LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS and CONWAY, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Mesick v. Polk
Court Name: New York Court of Appeals
Date Published: Oct 18, 1946
Citation: 296 N.Y. 673
Court Abbreviation: NY
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.