Bitterman v. Schulman

267 A.D. 858, 46 N.Y.S.2d 250
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 11, 1944·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam..

Upon the evidence in this ease, we find that the parties did not contemplate that the contract was to be performed exclusively in the State of New Jersey. Nor is there any proof that the parties intended that it was to be governed by the laws of any State other than that in which it was made. In the circumstances, the trial court properly applied the lex loci contractus. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur; Martin, P. J., and Townley, J., dissent and vote to reverse and grant judgment for defendant on the ground that the facts and the law require a holding that this contract is governed by the laws of the State of New Jersey.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Bitterman v. Schulman, 267 A.D. 858, 46 N.Y.S.2d 250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

267 A.D. 858 (Bitterman v. Schulman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gold Medal Farms, Inc. v. Rutland County Co-Operative Creamery, Inc.
9 A.D.2d 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
J. I. Kislak, Inc. v. Carol Management Corp.
7 A.D.2d 428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Gartrell v. Jennings
283 A.D. 879 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1954)