Chase National Bank v. Wessell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chase National Bank v. Wessell

245 A.D. 815

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D. 815 (Chase National Bank v. Wessell) 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

Chase National Bank v. Wessell, 245 A.D. 815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Order in so far as it grants plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. In so far as it denies defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the order is affirmed, without costs. In this case there are questions of fact which can be determined only upon a trial. There are also questions of law which can be solved only after all of the facts are presented. Paragraph sixth of the contract seems to be ambiguous. It may mean that the defendants were required to call for the stock. Parol proof would be admissible to show the intention of the parties. Plaintiff’s rights under the contract are limited to 114 shares in the absence of proof of-an assignment of Katherine E. Kopp’s rights under the contract. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order in so far as it grants plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. In so far as it denies defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the order is affirmed, without costs. In this case there are questions of fact which can be determined only upon a trial. There are also questions of law which can be solved only after all of the facts are presented. Paragraph sixth of the contract seems to be ambiguous. It may mean that the defendants were required to call for the stock. Parol proof would be admissible to show the intention of the parties. Plaintiff’s rights under the contract are limited to 114 shares in the absence of proof of-an assignment of Katherine E. Kopp’s rights under the contract. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D. 815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-national-bank-v-wessell-nyappdiv-1935.