Advance Lamp Shade Corp. v. Bloom
This text of 125 Misc. 829 (Advance Lamp Shade Corp. v. Bloom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Judgment affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs.
The causes of action in the first action and in the present action arose out of the same contract. When plaintiff instituted the first [830]*830action, the breach sued for in the second action had occurred. The first action should have embraced all the breaches then existing. (Bendernagle v. Cocks, 19 Wend. 207; Pakas v. Hollingshead, 184 N. Y. 211, 215; Secor v. Sturgis, 16 id. 548, 554; Goldberg v. Eastern Brewing Co., 136 App. Div. 692, 693; Henderson Tire & Rubber Co. v. Wilson & Son, 235 N. Y. 489, 497.) The correctness of the decisions in Peruvian Panama Hat Co. v. Marcus (164 N. Y. Supp. 821) and in Rusch v. Klausner (117 id. 1074) seems to be questioned by the opinion in the later case of Hutt v. Hausman (118 Misc. 448) in the same court.
Present: Cropsey, Lazansky and MacCrate, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
125 Misc. 829, 211 N.Y.S. 568, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/advance-lamp-shade-corp-v-bloom-nyappterm-1925.