W. G. Cornell Co. v. McKiever

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

W. G. Cornell Co. v. McKiever

214 A.D. 738

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1925·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order denying motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, pursuant to rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and section 476 of the Civil Practice Act, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disburse[739]*739ments, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The contract between the parties was in writing, and parol evidence is inadmissible to vary its terms. (Delehanty v. Dunn, 151 App. Div. 695; Gurski v. Doscher, 112 id. 345.) The pleadings and the other papers used upon the motion show that no issue was presented as to performance. Kelly, P. J., Jaycox, Manning, Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, pursuant to rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and section 476 of the Civil Practice Act, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disburse[739]*739ments, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The contract between the parties was in writing, and parol evidence is inadmissible to vary its terms. (Delehanty v. Dunn, 151 App. Div. 695; Gurski v. Doscher, 112 id. 345.) The pleadings and the other papers used upon the motion show that no issue was presented as to performance. Kelly, P. J., Jaycox, Manning, Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur.

W. G. Cornell Co. v. McKiever, 214 A.D. 738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

214 A.D. 738 (W. G. Cornell Co. v. McKiever) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related