Frankel v. Knickerbocker Ice Co.

248 A.D. 757
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1936·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, order dismissing complaint at the close of plaintiff’s ease and judgment entered thereon reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. Plaintiff proved facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, -there being proof that the parties had accepted and acted upon a modification of the contract, so that plaintiff was justified in selling ice to “ loaders.” To the extent that the contract was so modified and acted upon, the question of such modification, not being in writing, is not involved. The contract was not assignable, but, even if it were, defendant was not relieved from its duty thereunder. The proof fell short of showing a novation. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Frankel v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 248 A.D. 757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

248 A.D. 757 (Frankel v. Knickerbocker Ice Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Radist v. Zidel
12 A.D.2d 648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)