Legal Opinion

Goldberg v. Kirschstein

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1901PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Demuebee by plaintiff to part of defendant’s answer.

1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, J.

The action is to compel specific performance of a copartnership contract, and to enjoin the defendant from forming any other copartnership; or, in case specific performance cannot be had, for damages caused by the alleged breach of the contract.

As a defense the defendant pleads “ that the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for damages against this defendant, who is financially solvent and able to respond in damages for the "breach of any contract to which he_ is a party, and that said plaintiff cannot maintain this action in equity by reason of such facts.” To this the plaintiff demurs…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Seth v. CramerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1825
  2. Grandin v. Le Roy & SmythNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
  3. People v. . BoothNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
  4. Waltermire v. . WestoverNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
  5. Pratt v. HugginsNew York Supreme Court · 1859

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Favero v. WynachtMontana Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Hart v. HartAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919

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

Powered by the Exa API