Russell v. Aeroxon
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Order denying defendant Kaiser’s motion to dismiss the complaint reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The instrument Exhibit E is not a compliance with the Statute of Frauds so far as the defendant Kaiser individually is concerned. That instrument concerned the dealings of the plaintiff with the Belgian corporation. There is no allegation in either the complaint or the answer of what the law of Belgium, statute or otherwise, is in respect of such a transaction. Since an act claimed to have occurred in Belgium is invoked…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Crane v. . PowellNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Beers v. HotchkissNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Sanger v. . MerrittNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Smith v. Compania Litografica De La HabanaNew York Supreme Court · 1926
- Smith v. De La HabanaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927