Trustees of Hamilton College v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trustees of Hamilton College v. Roberts

166 A.D. 906, 154 N.Y.S. 1147

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D. 906 (Trustees of Hamilton College v. Roberts) 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

Trustees of Hamilton College v. Roberts, 166 A.D. 906, 154 N.Y.S. 1147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We are of the opinion that the construction put upon the contract by the trial court is correct, and that the evidence fails to show, as was held by the trial court, what land is reasonably necessary to answer the requirements of the contract as so construed. It seems to have been the intention of the trial judge not to preclude the plaintiff from bringing another action, and, therefore, to avoid any question in that regard, we think it better that the dismissal of the complaint should be upon the motion for the nonsuit made at the trial, upon which decision was reserved. The decision may be modified so as to show affirmatively that the complaint was not dismissed upon the merits. All concurred; Foote, J., not sitting. Decision of trial court amended by striking out all the findings of fact, and the judgment modified so as to provide that the complaint is dismissed upon the motion for the nonsuit made by the defendant at the close of the evidence, and as so modified the judgment is affirmed, with costs to respondents.

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

Per Curiam:

We are of the opinion that the construction put upon the contract by the trial court is correct, and that the evidence fails to show, as was held by the trial court, what land is reasonably necessary to answer the requirements of the contract as so construed. It seems to have been the intention of the trial judge not to preclude the plaintiff from bringing another action, and, therefore, to avoid any question in that regard, we think it better that the dismissal of the complaint should be upon the motion for the nonsuit made at the trial, upon which decision was reserved. The decision may be modified so as to show affirmatively that the complaint was not dismissed upon the merits. All concurred; Foote, J., not sitting. Decision of trial court amended by striking out all the findings of fact, and the judgment modified so as to provide that the complaint is dismissed upon the motion for the nonsuit made by the defendant at the close of the evidence, and as so modified the judgment is affirmed, with costs to respondents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D. 906, 154 N.Y.S. 1147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trustees-of-hamilton-college-v-roberts-nyappdiv-1914.