Legal Opinion

Cundill v. A. W. Millhauser Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1930PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtDike, J.

This action is brought under section 144 of the Personal Property Law (added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571), plaintiff seeking to recover the contract price from A. W. Millhauser Corporation, the defendant, for certain antimony sold at New York under a c. i. f. contract. The parties are merchants of New York city, and on December 31, 1925, they entered into the contract in question whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell to the defendant 25 tons of 2,240 pounds each, of Chinese antimony, c. i. f. New York, shipment promptly from Hamburg, payment net cash against shipping documents payable upon…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re the Arbitration Between Bullard & Morgan H. Grace Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1925
  2. Middleton v. BoardmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
  3. Seaver v. Lindsay Light Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
  4. Ruttonjee v. FrameAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
  5. Cundill v. A. W. Millhauser Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Cundill v. A. W. Millhauser Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API