Menter & Rosenbloom Co. v. Kelly

164 A.D. 911, 148 N.Y.S. 1130

This text of 164 A.D. 911 (Menter & Rosenbloom Co. v. Kelly) 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
Menter & Rosenbloom Co. v. Kelly, 164 A.D. 911, 148 N.Y.S. 1130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Opinion

Judgment modified by striking out the third paragraph thereof and such part of the second paragraph as is not covered by the decision and as so modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Held, that the judgment entered was too broad and not authorized by the decision; that a judgment in accordance with the decision will fully protect all the plaintiff’s rights under the contract. All concurred, except Foote, J., who dissented upon the ground that plaintiff did not make a case for equitable relief, but should be left to its remedy at law.. ■ ■ . ■

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 A.D. 911, 148 N.Y.S. 1130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menter-rosenbloom-co-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1914.