John A. Harriss, Respondent v. J. Frederic Tams, Doing Business Under the Firm Name of Tams, Lemoine &…

Summary

The Court held that the plaintiff’s amendment of the complaint to assert a claim for breach of an implied warranty of authority did not defeat the defendants’ statute‑of‑limitations defense, and therefore the damages awarded for that claim were erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division was reversed and a new trial was ordered. The decision also reaffirmed the principle that a broker’s unauthorized warranty does not give the buyer a right to recover the purchase price absent rescission.