Cundill v. A. W. Millhauser Corp.
219 A.D. 834
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1927·Published·Cited by 1 cases
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] parties 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
Cundill v. A. W. Millhauser Corp., 219 A.D. 834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).
219 A.D. 834 (Cundill v. A. W. Millhauser Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cundill v. A. W. Millhauser Corp.
136 Misc. 107 (New York Supreme Court, 1930)