Alexander Hamilton Institute v. Folgner

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Alexander Hamilton Institute v. Folgner

168 Misc. 358, 6 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1793

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 21, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 168 Misc. 358 (Alexander Hamilton Institute v. Folgner) 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.

Bluebook

Alexander Hamilton Institute v. Folgner, 168 Misc. 358, 6 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defense attempts to show by parol that the written contract sued upon was to be ineffectual, if the defendant decided to discontinue the course of studies. This proof would be inadmissible (Jamestown Business College Assn. v. Allen, 172 N. Y. 291), and hence no triable issue remained.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion granted.

All concur. Present — Lydon, Frankenthaler and Noonan, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The defense attempts to show by parol that the written contract sued upon was to be ineffectual, if the defendant decided to discontinue the course of studies. This proof would be inadmissible (Jamestown Business College Assn. v. Allen, 172 N. Y. 291), and hence no triable issue remained.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion granted.

All concur. Present — Lydon, Frankenthaler and Noonan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 Misc. 358, 6 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-hamilton-institute-v-folgner-nyappterm-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack