Kassel v. N. V. Nederlandsch Amerikaansche Stoomvaart Maatschappij

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kassel v. N. V. Nederlandsch Amerikaansche Stoomvaart Maatschappij

177 Misc. 92, 24 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2503

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 12, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 177 Misc. 92 (Kassel v. N. V. Nederlandsch Amerikaansche Stoomvaart Maatschappij) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kassel v. N. V. Nederlandsch Amerikaansche Stoomvaart Maatschappij, 177 Misc. 92, 24 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed and order unanimously modified upon the law, with ten dollars costs to the defendant. The order granting summary judgment is modified by providing therein that the motion is granted except as to the amount of the damages and by providing that an assessment to determine the amount of such damages be had before the court below, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Under the contract of passage the plaintiff, not having taken passage under the contract, was entitled to a refund of reichsmarks in Germany or elsewhere, depending upon where demand therefor is made. Since demand, for the refund was made by the plaintiff in New York, the internal laws of the German Reich have no application, for all matters connected with the performance of a contract are regulated by the law of the place where the contract is to be performed. (Union Nat. Bank v. Chapman, 169 N. Y. 538; Pan-American Securities Corp. v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft, 169 Misc. 445; affd., 256 App. Div. 955.) The defendant’s obligation to refund reichsmarks in New York entitled the plaintiff to a judgment in dollars measured by the rate of exchange prevailing at the date of the defendant’s breach. (Hoppe v. Russo-Asiatic Bank, 235 N. Y. 37, 39.) The court below erred in applying the rate of exchange expressed in the contract.

Present — Lewis, Smith and Steinbeink, JJ.

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

Pee Cueiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed and order unanimously modified upon the law, with ten dollars costs to the defendant. The order granting summary judgment is modified by providing therein that the motion is granted except as to the amount of the damages and by providing that an assessment to determine the amount of such damages be had before the court below, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Under the contract of passage the plaintiff, not having taken passage under the contract, was entitled to a refund of reichsmarks in Germany or elsewhere, depending upon where demand therefor is made. Since demand, for the refund was made by the plaintiff in New York, the internal laws of the German Reich have no application, for all matters connected with the performance of a contract are regulated by the law of the place where the contract is to be performed. (Union Nat. Bank v. Chapman, 169 N. Y. 538; Pan-American Securities Corp. v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft, 169 Misc. 445; affd., 256 App. Div. 955.) The defendant’s obligation to refund reichsmarks in New York entitled the plaintiff to a judgment in dollars measured by the rate of exchange prevailing at the date of the defendant’s breach. (Hoppe v. Russo-Asiatic Bank, 235 N. Y. 37, 39.) The court below erred in applying the rate of exchange expressed in the contract.

Present — Lewis, Smith and Steinbeink, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 Misc. 92, 24 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kassel-v-n-v-nederlandsch-amerikaansche-stoomvaart-maatschappij-nyappterm-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack