In re Ernest Zobel Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ernest Zobel Co.

241 A.D. 699

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 241 A.D. 699 (In re Ernest Zobel Co.) 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

In re Ernest Zobel Co., 241 A.D. 699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the matter remitted to Special Term, where the parties may proceed as they are advised — on the ground that a question of fact exists as to whether the contracts containing the arbitration clause ever became effective and operative by any substantial performance, on the part of the parties, of the provisions and conditions therein contained. The disputed question of whether or not these contracts became effective and enforeible agreements must first be decided by the court at Special Term before the parties may be directed to proceed with an arbitration. Young, Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Order reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the matter remitted to Special Term, where the parties may proceed as they are advised — on the ground that a question of fact exists as to whether the contracts containing the arbitration clause ever became effective and operative by any substantial performance, on the part of the parties, of the provisions and conditions therein contained. The disputed question of whether or not these contracts became effective and enforeible agreements must first be decided by the court at Special Term before the parties may be directed to proceed with an arbitration. Young, Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D. 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ernest-zobel-co-nyappdiv-1934.