Ormond Realty Co. v. Consolidated Trimming Corp.
238 A.D. 118, 263 N.Y.S. 344, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9432
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 7, 1933·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinions
The submission is incomplete. The letter, Exhibit “ C,” is ambiguous and its true meaning is not stipulated. There is also no stipulation that the letter was the cause of the subtenants’ refusal to pay rent. Only by inference could such facts be found. The court may not draw inferences of fact from the facts within the stipulated case. (Dreiser v. Lane Co., 183 App. Div. 773.)
The submission should be dismissed.
McAvoy, Martin, O'Malley and Townley, JJ., concur; Finch, P. J., dissents.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ormond Realty Co. v. Consolidated Trimming Corp., 238 A.D. 118, 263 N.Y.S. 344, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).
238 A.D. 118 (Ormond Realty Co. v. Consolidated Trimming Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Town of Putnam Valley v. Slutzky
256 A.D. 929 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1939)