Legal Opinion
Hicks v. Bush
New York Court of Appeals
Decided January 18, 1962PublishedCited by 77 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFuld, J.
In this action for specific performance of a written agreement, we granted the plaintiff leave to appeal to consider whether the parol evidence rule was violated by the receipt of testimony tending to establish that the parties had orally agreed that the legal effectiveness of the written agreement should be subject to a stated condition precedent.
On July 10, 1956, the plaintiff Frederick Hicks, together with defendant Michael Congero and one Jack McGee, executed a written agreement with the individual defendants, members of defendant Clinton G. Bush Company, whereby the parties *490were to merge…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ware v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Reynolds v. . RobinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Grannis v. . StevensNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Hartford Fire Insurance v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Saltzman v. BarsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by77 opinions
- Citibank, N. A. v. PlapingerNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Harold S. Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
- Ruttenberg v. Davidge Data Systems Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Anderson & Nafziger v. G. T. Newcomb, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1979
- Mizuna, Ltd. v. Crossland Federal Savings Bank, AKA Crossland Savings Fsb, Royal Realty Co., a PartnershipCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.