Schaad v. Russell Gardens, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schaad v. Russell Gardens, Inc.

230 A.D. 736

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

DecidedJune 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 230 A.D. 736 (Schaad v. Russell Gardens, Inc.) 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

Schaad v. Russell Gardens, Inc., 230 A.D. 736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion of defendant Russell Gardens, Inc., for judgment on the pleadings reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The covenant referred to by the words “ shall not be sold except upon and with the foregoing covenant and condition as last above described,” refers to the last clause of the covenant mentioned in paragraph 6 of the amended complaint with reference to highways, avenues, streets or lanes. Young, Kapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents upon the ground that the words above quoted refer to the entire covenant mentioned in paragraph 6 of the amended complaint, and that in any event there may be an ambiguity requiring a trial of the action.

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

Order denying motion of defendant Russell Gardens, Inc., for judgment on the pleadings reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The covenant referred to by the words “ shall not be sold except upon and with the foregoing covenant and condition as last above described,” refers to the last clause of the covenant mentioned in paragraph 6 of the amended complaint with reference to highways, avenues, streets or lanes. Young, Kapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents upon the ground that the words above quoted refer to the entire covenant mentioned in paragraph 6 of the amended complaint, and that in any event there may be an ambiguity requiring a trial of the action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.D. 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaad-v-russell-gardens-inc-nyappdiv-1930.