Kamber v. Rosen
98 N.Y.S. 839
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided February 27, 1906·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
We do not think that the guaranty ever became effective, because it was never accepted by plaintiff. The original guaranty was returned for the addition of a clause. Up to this time if certainly had not been accepted, and the guarantors had a right to recall it. This they unmistakably did. We do not consider that the minds of the parties ever met on the subject. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kamber v. Rosen, 98 N.Y.S. 839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).
98 N.Y.S. 839 (Kamber v. Rosen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. Huestis
2 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 40 (Superior Court of Rhode Island, 1919)
American Woolen Co. v. Moskowitz
159 A.D. 382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)
American Woolen Co. v. Moskowitz
140 N.Y.S. 522 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)