Legal Opinion

Ruegg v. Fairfield Securities Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 11, 1955PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDesmond, J.

This suit was brought because of defendant’s default in carrying out this promise:

“ March 4th, 1949

Mr. Erhart Ruegg

24 West 40th Street

New York City, New York

Dear Sir:

At the request of Mr. William S. Arnold, we hereby agree to pay to you, for the account of Mr. Arnold, the sum of Twelve Thousand ($12,000.00) Dollars within thirty (30) days after certain Bonds No. 16-2548/9-47 *316issued by the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company for William S. Arnold and John Stum, have been cancelled and all the collateral now pledged to secure said bonds has been released by the United States Fidelity…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bernardine v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
  2. Gubelman v. Ands Koch, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1923

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. De Mayo v. Yates Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970
  2. Conklin v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
  3. Hacker v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
  4. Clark v. DonovanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970
  5. Victor Catering Co. v. NascaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API