Rose v. Yorklyn Construction Co.
241 A.D. 630
Opinion
Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event, upon the ground that plaintiffs made out a cause of action. (Hyland v. Cobb, 252 N. Y. 325; Dickson v. McCoy, 39 id. 400; Buchanan v. Stout, 139 App. Div. 204; Quilty v. Battie, 135 N. Y. 201; Brice v. Bauer, 108 id. 428; Keenan v. Gutta Percha Manfg. Co., 46 Hun, 544; Hahnke v. Friederich, 140 N. Y. 224; Holzer v. Rosenberg, 209 App. Div. 823.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rose v. Yorklyn Construction Co., 241 A.D. 630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).
241 A.D. 630 (Rose v. Yorklyn Construction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hahnke v. . Friederich
35 N.E. 437 (New York Court of Appeals, 1893)
Hyland v. Cobb
169 N.E. 401 (New York Court of Appeals, 1929)
Quilty v. . Battie
32 N.E. 47 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
Buchanan v. Stout
139 A.D. 204 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)
Holzer v. Rosenberg
209 A.D. 823 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)