Legal Opinion
Kurlan v. Tirrell Bros. Silk Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 19, 1952PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
IRVING R. KAUFMAN, District Judge.
Having been consolidated, these two ■causes came on for trial without a jury. During trial, Civil 50-324 and defendant’s counterclaim in' Civil 50-325 were discontinued by consent. It remains for the Court to dispose of the three causes of action in Civil 50-325.
As a result of conversations and an exchange of correspondence, defendant and plaintiffs arrived at an agreement in May, 1948. That agreement is the basis for the third cause of action, which arose earlier than the first two causes in suit. Under its terms, defendant was to weave various quantities of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hostetter v. ParkSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Laskey v. Rubel Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Seligson v. WeissAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
- Rotberg v. Dodwell & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Hooper v. . StoryNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Valentine v. Ormsbee Exploration Corp.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1983
- Discount Motor Sales, Inc. v. ShubrooksDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1960