Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co. v. American Asphalt Paint Co.

187 A.D. 944
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co. v. American Asphalt Paint Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 182 A.D. 235

Opinion

Per Curiam:

When this case was before us on the appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a bill of particulars (182 App. Div. 235) we pointed out that there was an ambiguity in the contract which required evidence to remove, and for that reason we refused to construe the contract on a motion. Notwithstanding this plain statement of our views, the plaintiff has made two motions for judgment on the pleadings before different justices at Special Term, and taken this appeal. The bill's of particulars that have been served have not resolved the question of construction of the contract. It should be construed on the trial in the light of such evidence as may be appropriately received to remove the ambiguity. The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present—Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Shearn, JJ. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co. v. American Asphalt Paint Co., 187 A.D. 944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1919).

187 A.D. 944 (Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co. v. American Asphalt Paint Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co. v. American Asphalt Paint Co.
182 A.D. 235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1918)