Continental Rubber Works v. Tri-Continental Corp.

206 A.D. 643
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 15, 1923
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 206 A.D. 643 (Continental Rubber Works v. Tri-Continental Corp.) 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
Continental Rubber Works v. Tri-Continental Corp., 206 A.D. 643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1923).

Opinion

Per Cubiam:

The justices of the Supreme Court elected in the Eighth Judicial District have adopted the following Calendar Rule applicable to Erie county: Ride 8. “ Part IV" is reserved for the trial of actions on sales of personal property, including agreements incident to such sales, for work, labor and services, and materials furnished, upon policies of insurance, and upon negotiable paper and other instruments transferable by endorsement or order, and for determining the validity of probate by action in the Supreme Court.” This rule accords with the requirement of section 149 of the Judiciary Law. Authority to adopt the rule is found in section 155 of the Judiciary Law. The plaintiff has duly moved under this local rule to reserve this cause for trial in Part IV. The complaint shows the action to be one for the breach on the part of the buyer of a contract by which the plaintiff agreed to manufacture and sell to the defendant certain articles of personal property. The contract clearly was one for the sale of future goods. (Pers. Prop. Law, §§ 86, 156.)

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

Related

Bailey v. Smith
27 Misc. 2d 168 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Jennings v. Doyle
263 A.D. 488 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1942)
Siegler v. Massachusetts Accident Co.
255 A.D. 1031 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1938)
Pistell v. Wood
232 A.D. 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
206 A.D. 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-rubber-works-v-tri-continental-corp-nyappdiv-1923.