Legal Opinion

Gilman v. Broad Brook Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 20, 1930PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtValente, J.

Plaintiff brings this action for damages for non-

delivery of two orders of cloth, one known as 2411, the other as 2410. Defendant had agreed to manufacture this cloth for the plaintiff, who was a manufacturer of overcoats. By reason of the non-delivery it is alleged in the complaint that plaintiff could not make delivery of manufactured garments to his customers, because the cloth could not be purchased in the open market and could not be procured at any mill other than that of the defendant. The latter does not deny the non-delivery, but sets up the defense of cancellation by reason of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Orester v. Dayton Rubber Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
  2. Baxter v. LustbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Parrott v. AllisonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
  2. Gillman v. Broad Brook Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API