Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Syracuse Auto Supply Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Syracuse Auto Supply Corp.

233 A.D. 788

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

DecidedMay 15, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 A.D. 788 (Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Syracuse Auto Supply Corp.) 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

Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Syracuse Auto Supply Corp., 233 A.D. 788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinions

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave to the defendant to plead over within twenty days upon payment of the costs of the motion and of this appeal, on the ground that the oral agreement relied on by the answer is unenforcible under the Statute of Frauds, being an executory agreement not to be performed within one year. We are required to pass upon this question as of the date of the beginning of the action, although the matter would not be material in a new action, as the date of ultimate extension, January 1,1931, has already passed. (Burns v. Lopez, 256 N. Y. 123; Delaware Trust Co. v. Calm, 195 id. 231.) All concur, except Crouch and Thompson, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance in a memorandum. Present—Sears, P. J., Crouch, Taylor, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

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

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave to the defendant to plead over within twenty days upon payment of the costs of the motion and of this appeal, on the ground that the oral agreement relied on by the answer is unenforcible under the Statute of Frauds, being an executory agreement not to be performed within one year. We are required to pass upon this question as of the date of the beginning of the action, although the matter would not be material in a new action, as the date of ultimate extension, January 1,1931, has already passed. (Burns v. Lopez, 256 N. Y. 123; Delaware Trust Co. v. Calm, 195 id. 231.) All concur, except Crouch and Thompson, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance in a memorandum. Present—Sears, P. J., Crouch, Taylor, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D. 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westinghouse-electric-supply-co-v-syracuse-auto-supply-corp-nyappdiv-1931.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack