Raul International Corp. v. Howard Morrison Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raul International Corp. v. Howard Morrison Corp.

282 A.D. 1042, 126 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5760

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 1042 (Raul International Corp. v. Howard Morrison 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

Raul International Corp. v. Howard Morrison Corp., 282 A.D. 1042, 126 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders unanimously affirmed, with. $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent, with leave to the defendants to serve a second amended answer repleading the second and third affirmative defenses. The complaint states a cause of action for conversion. If the defendants seek to replead the second and third affirmative defenses it is requisite that the agreement between the parties, if one is claimed to have been made, should be set forth with sufficient detail to show the legal effect of the laws of Argentina upon the performance or enforcement of the alleged agreement. Although it is not necessary to set out the evidentiary facts, enough must be stated to show the legal effect of the foreign law or statute upon which the defenses depend. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Breitel and Bastow, JJ.

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

Orders unanimously affirmed, with. $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent, with leave to the defendants to serve a second amended answer repleading the second and third affirmative defenses. The complaint states a cause of action for conversion. If the defendants seek to replead the second and third affirmative defenses it is requisite that the agreement between the parties, if one is claimed to have been made, should be set forth with sufficient detail to show the legal effect of the laws of Argentina upon the performance or enforcement of the alleged agreement. Although it is not necessary to set out the evidentiary facts, enough must be stated to show the legal effect of the foreign law or statute upon which the defenses depend. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Breitel and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 1042, 126 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raul-international-corp-v-howard-morrison-corp-nyappdiv-1953.