Winters v. North Kensington Refinery, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Winters v. North Kensington Refinery, Inc.

26 N.E.2d 804, 282 N.Y. 663, 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 1464

New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 5, 1940·Published

Opinion

Judgments reversed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. We conclude that ambiguities present in the written contract of employment make doubtful the intent of the parties and present questions of fact to be determined by a jury upon proof of circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract, which evidence *664 must be consistent with the terms of the agreement and explanatory of its meaning. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Sears, Lewis and Conway, JJ.

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

Judgments reversed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. We conclude that ambiguities present in the written contract of employment make doubtful the intent of the parties and present questions of fact to be determined by a jury upon proof of circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract, which evidence *664 must be consistent with the terms of the agreement and explanatory of its meaning. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Sears, Lewis and Conway, JJ.

Winters v. North Kensington Refinery, Inc., 26 N.E.2d 804, 282 N.Y. 663, 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 1464 (N.Y. 1940).

Pincite

26 N.E.2d 804 (Winters v. North Kensington Refinery, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.