Peggy-Ann Kent-Van Werth v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peggy-Ann Kent-Van Werth v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

9 A.D.2d 931, 196 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5388

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.2d 931 (Peggy-Ann Kent-Van Werth v. Twentieth Century Fox Film 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

Peggy-Ann Kent-Van Werth v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 9 A.D.2d 931, 196 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal (1) from an order which granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and on the further ground that the cause of action was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon. The motion to dismiss was made on a further ground that appellant, a beneficiary under a testamentary trust, did not have legal capacity to sue, but the Special Term did not pass upon that ground. Appellant contends her cause of action is based on fraud; respondents contend it is based on a contract. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present- — Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ. [16 Misc 2d 870.]

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

Appeal (1) from an order which granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and on the further ground that the cause of action was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon. The motion to dismiss was made on a further ground that appellant, a beneficiary under a testamentary trust, did not have legal capacity to sue, but the Special Term did not pass upon that ground. Appellant contends her cause of action is based on fraud; respondents contend it is based on a contract. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present- — Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ. [16 Misc 2d 870.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 931, 196 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peggy-ann-kent-van-werth-v-twentieth-century-fox-film-corp-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack