Roerich v. Horch
254 A.D. 663, 4 N.Y.S.2d 378
Opinion
(dissenting). The indisputable documentary evidence bearing on the main issues presented was of such a character that a finding in favor of plaintiffs was required. (Duryea v. Zimmerman, 143 App. Div. 60, 68; Susquehanna Silk Mills v. Jacobson, 185 id. 378, 383. See, also, Bernstein v. Kritzer, 253 N. Y. 410, 416.) I, therefore, dissent and vote to reverse and grant judgment for the plaintiffs as prayed for in the complaint and to dismiss the counterclaims.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Roerich v. Horch, 254 A.D. 663, 4 N.Y.S.2d 378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).
254 A.D. 663 (Roerich v. Horch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bernstein v. Kritzer
171 N.E. 690 (New York Court of Appeals, 1930)
Duryea v. Zimmerman
143 A.D. 60 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)