Roerich v. Horch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roerich v. Horch

254 A.D. 663, 4 N.Y.S.2d 378

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

DecidedApril 22, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 663 (Roerich v. Horch) 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

Roerich v. Horch, 254 A.D. 663, 4 N.Y.S.2d 378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Malley, J.

(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

O’Malley, J.

(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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 663, 4 N.Y.S.2d 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roerich-v-horch-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack