Schwob v. Goodwin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwob v. Goodwin

176 A.D. 885

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A.D. 885 (Schwob v. Goodwin) 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

Schwob v. Goodwin, 176 A.D. 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

As the case now stands it is controlled by the ‘ ‘ second ’’ clause of the written contract between Schwob and Goodwin. That clause is clear and apparently free from ambiguity. The trial court erred in its interpretation. The “fifth” and “ sixth ” findings of fact, and the “first,” “second” and “third” conclusions of law are reversed. The judgment is reversed, with costs of this appeal to the appellants, and a new trial is granted, costs to abide the final award of costs. Thomas, Carr, Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

As the case now stands it is controlled by the ‘ ‘ second ’’ clause of the written contract between Schwob and Goodwin. That clause is clear and apparently free from ambiguity. The trial court erred in its interpretation. The “fifth” and “ sixth ” findings of fact, and the “first,” “second” and “third” conclusions of law are reversed. The judgment is reversed, with costs of this appeal to the appellants, and a new trial is granted, costs to abide the final award of costs. Thomas, Carr, Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D. 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwob-v-goodwin-nyappdiv-1916.