Wahl v. Vicana Sugar Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wahl v. Vicana Sugar Co.

2 A.D.2d 848, 156 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4106

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 848 (Wahl v. Vicana Sugar Co.) 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

Wahl v. Vicana Sugar Co., 2 A.D.2d 848, 156 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur ■—■ Breitel, J. F., Botein and Bergan, JJ.; Rabin and Valente, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum: The provisions of the indenture agreement on the subject of jurisdiction are sufficiently ambiguous to warrant the application of the principle of strict construction against the maker, in this instance the defendant-respondent. In our view of this case, the defendant-respondent validly consented to the jurisdiction of the courts of New York over its person with respect to any claim — whether by a debenture holder or the trustee — concerning the debentures provided for in the agreement. Accordingly, the decision of Special Term should be reversed and the defendant’s motion to set aside the service of the summons denied.

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

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur ■—■ Breitel, J. F., Botein and Bergan, JJ.; Rabin and Valente, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum: The provisions of the indenture agreement on the subject of jurisdiction are sufficiently ambiguous to warrant the application of the principle of strict construction against the maker, in this instance the defendant-respondent. In our view of this case, the defendant-respondent validly consented to the jurisdiction of the courts of New York over its person with respect to any claim — whether by a debenture holder or the trustee — concerning the debentures provided for in the agreement. Accordingly, the decision of Special Term should be reversed and the defendant’s motion to set aside the service of the summons denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 848, 156 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wahl-v-vicana-sugar-co-nyappdiv-1956.