Marwede v. Commercial Hotel, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marwede v. Commercial Hotel, Inc.

273 A.D. 984, 78 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5595

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

DecidedApril 26, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 273 A.D. 984 (Marwede v. Commercial Hotel, Inc.) 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

Marwede v. Commercial Hotel, Inc., 273 A.D. 984, 78 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract described as one of employment, for salary, damages, and other relief, judgment, rendered after trial by the court without a jury, declaring that the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, and dismissing the complaint and counterclaim without prejudice, reversed on.the law and the facts; with costs to appellant, and the action remitted to Hr. Justice Hill, who tried the action at Special Term, to decide the case on the merits. The proof establishes that the shares of stock, the delivery of which plaintiff seeks to compel, are of such nature as to warrant the court, on proper findings, to order their delivery, rather than to hol'd that a recovery of their value would provide an adequate remedy. Hence, the proof established a case for equitable jurisdiction. In such situation the court of equity should retain control of the cause generally and award complete relief, even though the rights of the parties are legal and the remedy that of a. court of law. (Jamaica Sav. Bank, v. M. S. Investing Co., 274 N. Y. 215, 220.) Inasmuch as the merits of the case have not been passed upon by the trial court, this court does not pass upon the merits and render final judgment, as if acting under subdivision 2 of section 584 of the Civil Practice Act. (Skinner v. Paramount Pictures, 294 N. Y. 474.) Lewis, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for specific performance of a contract described as one of employment, for salary, damages, and other relief, judgment, rendered after trial by the court without a jury, declaring that the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, and dismissing the complaint and counterclaim without prejudice, reversed on.the law and the facts; with costs to appellant, and the action remitted to Hr. Justice Hill, who tried the action at Special Term, to decide the case on the merits. The proof establishes that the shares of stock, the delivery of which plaintiff seeks to compel, are of such nature as to warrant the court, on proper findings, to order their delivery, rather than to hol'd that a recovery of their value would provide an adequate remedy. Hence, the proof established a case for equitable jurisdiction. In such situation the court of equity should retain control of the cause generally and award complete relief, even though the rights of the parties are legal and the remedy that of a. court of law. (Jamaica Sav. Bank, v. M. S. Investing Co., 274 N. Y. 215, 220.) Inasmuch as the merits of the case have not been passed upon by the trial court, this court does not pass upon the merits and render final judgment, as if acting under subdivision 2 of section 584 of the Civil Practice Act. (Skinner v. Paramount Pictures, 294 N. Y. 474.) Lewis, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D. 984, 78 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marwede-v-commercial-hotel-inc-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack