Atterbury v. McGlinn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Atterbury v. McGlinn

245 A.D. 701

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D. 701 (Atterbury v. McGlinn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atterbury v. McGlinn, 245 A.D. 701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The finding that the parties made the alleged oral agreements of October 29, 1929, and October 30, 1929, relied upon by the plaintiff in avoidance of her written agreement signed by her and not alleged to have been induced by fraud or misrepresentation, is in our opinion against the weight of the credible evidence. The present case, relating to unauthorized “ sales,” is no stronger than the prior action, predicated upon alleged unauthorized “ purchases,” in which we likewise reversed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff upon the same ground. (Atterbury v. McGlinn, 239 App. Div. 478.)

It follows, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Townley and Glennon, JJ.

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

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

Per Curiam.

The finding that the parties made the alleged oral agreements of October 29, 1929, and October 30, 1929, relied upon by the plaintiff in avoidance of her written agreement signed by her and not alleged to have been induced by fraud or misrepresentation, is in our opinion against the weight of the credible evidence. The present case, relating to unauthorized “ sales,” is no stronger than the prior action, predicated upon alleged unauthorized “ purchases,” in which we likewise reversed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff upon the same ground. (Atterbury v. McGlinn, 239 App. Div. 478.)

It follows, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Townley and Glennon, JJ.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D. 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atterbury-v-mcglinn-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack