Osborn v. MacMillan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Osborn v. MacMillan

236 A.D. 688

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

DecidedJune 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D. 688 (Osborn v. MacMillan) 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

Osborn v. MacMillan, 236 A.D. 688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Interlocutory judgment modified by striking therefrom so much as leaves for determination upon the accounting the question whether the appellant made the best and fairest disposition of the lease, and as so modified, interlocutory judgment unanimously affirmed, in so far as appealed from, without costs. We are of opinion that in the absence of fraud, which is not claimed by plaintiff, plaintiff is bound by MacMillan’s disposal of the lease. We do not intend by this determination to eliminate plaintiff’s right to have determined the value of what was received for the lease, i. e., the stock. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., concurs but is of opinion that the expense of both Neidlinger and MacMillan should be [689]*689established by proof upon the accounting for the determination of the gross profit of the joint adventture.

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

Interlocutory judgment modified by striking therefrom so much as leaves for determination upon the accounting the question whether the appellant made the best and fairest disposition of the lease, and as so modified, interlocutory judgment unanimously affirmed, in so far as appealed from, without costs. We are of opinion that in the absence of fraud, which is not claimed by plaintiff, plaintiff is bound by MacMillan’s disposal of the lease. We do not intend by this determination to eliminate plaintiff’s right to have determined the value of what was received for the lease, i. e., the stock. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., concurs but is of opinion that the expense of both Neidlinger and MacMillan should be [689]*689established by proof upon the accounting for the determination of the gross profit of the joint adventture.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D. 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborn-v-macmillan-nyappdiv-1931.