Legal Opinion
Friedman v. Bachmann
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 15, 1932PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Malley, J.
The amended complaint purports to set forth a cause of action for the price under a written agreement of purchase and sale. The agreement, a copy of which is annexed, reads in part, as follows:
“ June 18, 1926.
“David Greenberg, Gustave Stein, Max Friedman:
“ Gentlemen: Confirming conversation had by me with our Mr. Perl, the subject matter of which I understand he repeated to you, I beg to state that the 20 shares of our Cumulative Preferred ‘A’ Stock, which each of you now hold, numbered respectively 126, 118 and 127, as well as the 30 shares which Mr. Greenberg is subscribing for today, and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wills v. Investors Bankstocks Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Beals v. HirschAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- Beals v. HirschNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
3Cited by12 opinions
- Agar v. OrdaNew York Supreme Court · 1932
- Mott v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1936
- Anderson v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
- Ferris v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1983
- Bishop v. O. V. Tracy & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.