Van Court v. Jay

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

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

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

Related

Wing v. . Ansonia Clock Co.
7 N.E. 621 (New York Court of Appeals, 1886)
Ebert v. Loewenstein
42 A.D. 109 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 A.D. 824, 56 N.Y.S.2d 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-court-v-jay-nyappdiv-1945.