I. B. Kleinert Rubber Co. v. Wood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

I. B. Kleinert Rubber Co. v. Wood

220 A.D. 773

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 A.D. 773 (I. B. Kleinert Rubber Co. v. Wood) 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

I. B. Kleinert Rubber Co. v. Wood, 220 A.D. 773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed upon the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The record shows beyond question that 'the agreement made by plaintiff was at least that defendant should occupy the premises in question without rent until they were needed for factory building purposes. Nothing upon this subject is stated in the receipt signed by defendant, and the memorandum signed by plaintiff does not refer in any manner to the receipt. These two papers, therefore, cannot be considered together to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Exhibit 1, signed by defendant, only can be considered for this purpose, but it clearly does not contain the entire agreement between the parties, and is, therefore, not sufficient to take the transaction out of the statute. (Polucek v. Jahoda, 203 App. Div. 38; Dawson v. Margolies, 126 Misc. 39; affd., 218 App. Div. 755.) Kelly, P. J., Manning, Young, Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment reversed upon the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The record shows beyond question that 'the agreement made by plaintiff was at least that defendant should occupy the premises in question without rent until they were needed for factory building purposes. Nothing upon this subject is stated in the receipt signed by defendant, and the memorandum signed by plaintiff does not refer in any manner to the receipt. These two papers, therefore, cannot be considered together to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Exhibit 1, signed by defendant, only can be considered for this purpose, but it clearly does not contain the entire agreement between the parties, and is, therefore, not sufficient to take the transaction out of the statute. (Polucek v. Jahoda, 203 App. Div. 38; Dawson v. Margolies, 126 Misc. 39; affd., 218 App. Div. 755.) Kelly, P. J., Manning, Young, Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D. 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/i-b-kleinert-rubber-co-v-wood-nyappdiv-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack