Smith Bros. Plumbing Co. v. Engine Air Service, Inc.
279 A.D. 1082, 112 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5907
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 5, 1952·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
The County Court had jurisdiction to try respondent’s claim (Civ. Prac. Act, § 69). The facts established that respondent did not fully perform the employment agreement, in that the commitment procured was not unconditional and was not in accordance with the mortgage loan described in the employment agreement. Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur. [See 280 App. Div. 806.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smith Bros. Plumbing Co. v. Engine Air Service, Inc., 279 A.D. 1082, 112 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).
279 A.D. 1082 (Smith Bros. Plumbing Co. v. Engine Air Service, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Marine Midland Bank, N. A. v. Bowker
109 Misc. 2d 39 (New York County Courts, 1981)