Major v. Kollmorgen Optical Corp.

140 Misc. 790, 251 N.Y.S. 32, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1406

This text of 140 Misc. 790 (Major v. Kollmorgen Optical Corp.) 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
Major v. Kollmorgen Optical Corp., 140 Misc. 790, 251 N.Y.S. 32, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1406 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In view of the admissions in the answer, the contents of the various writings signed by the defendant, and the uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff, it was error to dismiss the complaint upon the theory that the alleged contract between the parties lacked mutuality. Moreover, sufficient evidence of damage was adduced to permit the trier of the facts to find that the plaintiff was actually damaged and to fix the amount of his damage. (See Mortimer v. Bristol, 190 App. Div. 452.)

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Untermyer, JJ.

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

Related

Mortimer v. Bristol
190 A.D. 452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 Misc. 790, 251 N.Y.S. 32, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/major-v-kollmorgen-optical-corp-nyappterm-1931.