Van Court v. Jay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Van Court v. Jay

269 A.D. 824, 56 N.Y.S.2d 396

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1945·Published

Opinion

Martin, P. J.

(dissenting). The. agreement sued on may not be read as imposing upon the defendants an absolute agreement to pay a minimum royalty in any event; the obEgation is to pay the minimum royalty named or suffer the revocation of the Ecense. (Wing v. Ansonia Clock Co., 102 N. Y. [825]*825531; Ebert v. Loewenstein, 42 App. Div. 109.) The motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted.

Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur in decision; Martin, P. J , dissents in opinion.

Order affirmed, with $20-costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendants to answer within ten days after service of order, on payment of said costs. No opinion. [See post, p. 843.]

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

Martin, P. J.

(dissenting). The. agreement sued on may not be read as imposing upon the defendants an absolute agreement to pay a minimum royalty in any event; the obEgation is to pay the minimum royalty named or suffer the revocation of the Ecense. (Wing v. Ansonia Clock Co., 102 N. Y. [825]*825531; Ebert v. Loewenstein, 42 App. Div. 109.) The motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted.

Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur in decision; Martin, P. J , dissents in opinion.

Order affirmed, with $20-costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendants to answer within ten days after service of order, on payment of said costs. No opinion. [See post, p. 843.]

Van Court v. Jay, 269 A.D. 824, 56 N.Y.S.2d 396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

269 A.D. 824 (Van Court v. Jay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related