Corbet v. . Manhattan Brass Company

New York Court of Appeals

Corbet v. . Manhattan Brass Company

76 N.E. 1092, 183 N.Y. 548, 1905 N.Y. LEXIS 693

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 12, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 N.E. 1092 (Corbet v. . Manhattan Brass Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Corbet v. . Manhattan Brass Company, 76 N.E. 1092, 183 N.Y. 548, 1905 N.Y. LEXIS 693 (N.Y. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Haight, J.

We agree with,the Appellate Division ás to its construction of the contract between the parties (Wing v. Ansonia Clock Co., 102 N. Y. 531; Ebert v. Loewenstein, 42 App. Div. 109 ; affd. on opinion below, 167 N. Y. 577); but we think the Appellate Division should have ordered a new trial instead of dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff in his complaint alleged that he had demanded of the defendant a re-assignment to him of the patents referred to in the contract and that the defendant had refused to re-assign the same. The issue formed upon .this allegation does not appear to have been determined by the trial court.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should, therefore, be modified accordingly ; costs to abide event.

Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Yann andWerner, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Haight, J.

We agree with,the Appellate Division ás to its construction of the contract between the parties (Wing v. Ansonia Clock Co., 102 N. Y. 531; Ebert v. Loewenstein, 42 App. Div. 109 ; affd. on opinion below, 167 N. Y. 577); but we think the Appellate Division should have ordered a new trial instead of dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff in his complaint alleged that he had demanded of the defendant a re-assignment to him of the patents referred to in the contract and that the defendant had refused to re-assign the same. The issue formed upon .this allegation does not appear to have been determined by the trial court.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should, therefore, be modified accordingly ; costs to abide event.

Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Yann andWerner, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 N.E. 1092, 183 N.Y. 548, 1905 N.Y. LEXIS 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corbet-v-manhattan-brass-company-ny-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack