Oppenheimer, Inc. v. Hygrade Food Products Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oppenheimer, Inc. v. Hygrade Food Products Corp.

277 A.D.2d 830

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

DecidedMay 10, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 830 (Oppenheimer, Inc. v. Hygrade Food Products Corp.) 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

Oppenheimer, Inc. v. Hygrade Food Products Corp., 277 A.D.2d 830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Taylor, P. J., who dissents and votes for reversal and for granting a new trial on the ground that the finding that delivery of 6,010 pounds of tallow and payment therefor at 9% cents per pound was referable to the order for a tank ear at 8% cents per pound and in recognition and part performance therefor so as to take the oral contract out of the Statute of Frauds is contrary to and against the weight of evidence. (The judgment appealed from is for plaintiff in an action for breach of contract. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — ■ Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Yaughan and Kimball, JJ.

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

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Taylor, P. J., who dissents and votes for reversal and for granting a new trial on the ground that the finding that delivery of 6,010 pounds of tallow and payment therefor at 9% cents per pound was referable to the order for a tank ear at 8% cents per pound and in recognition and part performance therefor so as to take the oral contract out of the Statute of Frauds is contrary to and against the weight of evidence. (The judgment appealed from is for plaintiff in an action for breach of contract. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — ■ Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Yaughan and Kimball, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oppenheimer-inc-v-hygrade-food-products-corp-nyappdiv-1950.