Brewster v. Kable News Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brewster v. Kable News Co.

262 A.D. 894, 28 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6419

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

DecidedJune 30, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D. 894 (Brewster v. Kable News Co.) 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

Brewster v. Kable News Co., 262 A.D. 894, 28 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Action on contract. Order striking out the defenses contained in paragraphs numbered “ Fourth ” to “ Twentieth ” of the answer herein, granting plaintiff’s motion, and denying defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment, and judgment entered thereon, in so far as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, plaintiff’s motion denied, and defendant’s cross-motion granted with ten dollars costs, and judgment directed to be entered in favor of defendant. As we construe the contract, the contingency relieving defendant of its obligation to pay plaintiff forty dollars a week for life is the discontinuance by defendant “ and/or its successors or assigns ” of the publication of the magazines by reason of the same being an unprofitable venture. In our opinion the undisputed facts clearly establish that the contingency did occur and that defendant’s obligation to plaintiff terminated upon the appointment of the equity receiver. The equity receiver and the purchaser at the judicial sale are not the successors or assigns of defendant within the contemplation of the contract. (Hanna v. Florence Iron Co., 222 N. Y. 290; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Brooklyn Properties Corp., 229 App. Div. 544.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Johnston, JJ., concur; Carswell and Close, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the order and the judgment.

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

Action on contract. Order striking out the defenses contained in paragraphs numbered “ Fourth ” to “ Twentieth ” of the answer herein, granting plaintiff’s motion, and denying defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment, and judgment entered thereon, in so far as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, plaintiff’s motion denied, and defendant’s cross-motion granted with ten dollars costs, and judgment directed to be entered in favor of defendant. As we construe the contract, the contingency relieving defendant of its obligation to pay plaintiff forty dollars a week for life is the discontinuance by defendant “ and/or its successors or assigns ” of the publication of the magazines by reason of the same being an unprofitable venture. In our opinion the undisputed facts clearly establish that the contingency did occur and that defendant’s obligation to plaintiff terminated upon the appointment of the equity receiver. The equity receiver and the purchaser at the judicial sale are not the successors or assigns of defendant within the contemplation of the contract. (Hanna v. Florence Iron Co., 222 N. Y. 290; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Brooklyn Properties Corp., 229 App. Div. 544.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Johnston, JJ., concur; Carswell and Close, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the order and the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 894, 28 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brewster-v-kable-news-co-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack