Legal Opinion

M. Ufland & Co. v. McMahon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 13, 1926PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCrouch, J.

Plaintiff sued defendants in the City Court of Rochester to recover for goods sold and delivered. The answer (1) admitted non-payment and denied all other allegations; (2) alleged as a defense that plaintiff agreed to sell and defendants to purchase the goods, subject to the condition that plaintiff had not sold and would not sell goods of the same description to any other dealer in Rochester; that plaintiff breached the condition; that thereupon defendants refused to proceed, so notified plaintiff and returned the goods then remaining in their possession; (3) alleged the same facts by way of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Callanan v. . K., A.C. L.C.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1910
  2. Owensboro Wagon Co. v. D. A. Wilson & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1909
  3. Raftery v. World Film Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
  4. De Mills Co. v. CaseyNew York Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Washburn v. Rainier Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Oppenheimer v. Harriman Nat. Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
  2. In re the Arbitration between Gold & Broido, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API