Newhouse v. Schundler & De Sola, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Newhouse v. Schundler & De Sola, Inc.

171 A.D. 924

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1915

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 171 A.D. 924 (Newhouse v. Schundler & De Sola, 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

Newhouse v. Schundler & De Sola, Inc., 171 A.D. 924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Order on motion for judgment on the pleadings modified by striking out the followng provision: “ Ordered, that plaintiff’s demurrer to the fifth defense in the answer of defendant Schundler & De Sola, Incorporated, be and it is hereby overruled,” and substituting therefor: “ Ordered, that the plaintiff’s demurrer to the fifth defense in the answer of defendant Schundler & De Sola, Incorporated, be and it is hereby allowed.” And as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to plaintiff, appellant. The ground of this decision is that in the contract of the maker there was not such an alteration as would avoid the instrument. Jenks, P. J., Stapleton, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

Order on motion for judgment on the pleadings modified by striking out the followng provision: “ Ordered, that plaintiff’s demurrer to the fifth defense in the answer of defendant Schundler & De Sola, Incorporated, be and it is hereby overruled,” and substituting therefor: “ Ordered, that the plaintiff’s demurrer to the fifth defense in the answer of defendant Schundler & De Sola, Incorporated, be and it is hereby allowed.” And as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to plaintiff, appellant. The ground of this decision is that in the contract of the maker there was not such an alteration as would avoid the instrument. Jenks, P. J., Stapleton, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D. 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newhouse-v-schundler-de-sola-inc-nyappdiv-1915.