N. A. N. A., Inc. v. Lake & Danenhower, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

N. A. N. A., Inc. v. Lake & Danenhower, Inc.

234 A.D. 735

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D. 735 (N. A. N. A., Inc. v. Lake & Danenhower, 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

N. A. N. A., Inc. v. Lake & Danenhower, Inc., 234 A.D. 735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that the writing designated Exhibit A and made part of the defense sought to be stricken out for insufficiency when considered as a whole, clearly expresses a binding contract between the parties within the purview of Sanders v. P. B. F. Co. (144 N. Y. 209). We are here concerned with a matter of pleading only. Whether evidence adduced at the trial concerning the surrounding facts and circumstances which led to the signing of this agreement may lead to any different conclusion is a question we may not now decide. The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, O’Malley, Sherman and Townley, JJ. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that the writing designated Exhibit A and made part of the defense sought to be stricken out for insufficiency when considered as a whole, clearly expresses a binding contract between the parties within the purview of Sanders v. P. B. F. Co. (144 N. Y. 209). We are here concerned with a matter of pleading only. Whether evidence adduced at the trial concerning the surrounding facts and circumstances which led to the signing of this agreement may lead to any different conclusion is a question we may not now decide. The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, O’Malley, Sherman and Townley, JJ. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D. 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/n-a-n-a-inc-v-lake-danenhower-inc-nyappdiv-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack