Jarach v. Ocean Carriers Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jarach v. Ocean Carriers Corp.

9 A.D.2d 646, 191 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6772

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 9 A.D.2d 646 (Jarach v. Ocean Carriers 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.

Bluebook

Jarach v. Ocean Carriers Corp., 9 A.D.2d 646, 191 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment unanimously affirmed, on the law, with costs to abide the event. Since the writings show that defendant’s agreement was made with and required payment to plaintiff, plaintiff may maintain this action in his own name even though he may be merely an agent for collection (Civ. Prac. Act, § 210; Gonsiderant v. Brisbane, 22 N. V. 389; 2 CarmodyWait, p. 548 et seq.). Issues of fact exist, however, with respect to the terms of agreement. The letter dated December 4, 1958, states that the agreement set forth therein shall be cancelled unless the ship has commenced loading by December 16. Defendant’s further agreement to pay plaintiff an additional $15,000, embodied in the letter dated November 28, 1958, is claimed to be conditioned upon the amendment of the letter of credit to provide for 30% payment upon presentation of master on board bills of lading. The agreement is not so clear in that respect as to permit determination of the issue on this record as a matter of law. Since these issues are sufficient to require trial, it is not necessary to reach the other question raised by defendant, namely, that there was a total substitution of the earlier by the later agreement. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and Stevens, JJ.

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

Order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment unanimously affirmed, on the law, with costs to abide the event. Since the writings show that defendant’s agreement was made with and required payment to plaintiff, plaintiff may maintain this action in his own name even though he may be merely an agent for collection (Civ. Prac. Act, § 210; Gonsiderant v. Brisbane, 22 N. V. 389; 2 CarmodyWait, p. 548 et seq.). Issues of fact exist, however, with respect to the terms of agreement. The letter dated December 4, 1958, states that the agreement set forth therein shall be cancelled unless the ship has commenced loading by December 16. Defendant’s further agreement to pay plaintiff an additional $15,000, embodied in the letter dated November 28, 1958, is claimed to be conditioned upon the amendment of the letter of credit to provide for 30% payment upon presentation of master on board bills of lading. The agreement is not so clear in that respect as to permit determination of the issue on this record as a matter of law. Since these issues are sufficient to require trial, it is not necessary to reach the other question raised by defendant, namely, that there was a total substitution of the earlier by the later agreement. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 646, 191 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarach-v-ocean-carriers-corp-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack