Legal Opinion
Collens v. Philipsborn's, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 6, 1924PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Dowling, J.:
The facts in this case are not in dispute. They are as follows:
Anderson Brothers, Manufacturers of Silk Waists, Inc. (hereinafter called the Corporation), were engaged in the manufacture of waists and dresses. On May 27, 1922, the Corporation sent the following letter to defendant:
“ Philipsborn’s, Inc.,
“ 501 S. Paulina St.,
“ Chicago, 111.:
“ Attention Mr. H. F. Philipsborn
“ Dear Sir.— This is to confirm our verbal agreement with you, whereby we agree to allow an extra 2% on our account with you, should the net volume reach $30,000 for the year 1922 — should the volume reach $45,000…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Fera v. . WickhamNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Myers v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Michigan Savings Bank v. MillarAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
- Michigan Savings Bank v. . MillarNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
- Golden v. D. R. Paskie & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. Greyhound Rent-A-Car, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1963
- Neander v. TillmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
- Stafford Security Co. v. KremerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931