Cundill v. A. W. Millhauser Corp.
This text of 219 A.D. 834 (Cundill v. A. W. Millhauser 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.
Opinion
Order denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. H there was any ambiguity in the contract, due to the use of the words “No arrival, no sale,” the intention of the [835]*835parties can only be determined after a trial of the issues. Kelly, P. J., Manning, Young, Lazansky and Hagarty, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
219 A.D. 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cundill-v-a-w-millhauser-corp-nyappdiv-1927.