Legal Opinion

Edwin F. Guth Co. v. Gurland

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

Decided December 27, 1935PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtUntermyer, J.

The plaintiff brings this action to recover for goods alleged to have been sold to the defendant but delivered to one Theodore Chrisomalis, whose connection with the defendant does not appear. In accordance with section 255-a of the Civil Practice Act a schedule of the goods is annexed to the complaint. The defendant by his answer denies the allegations of paragraph second of the complaint, which alleges a sale of the goods to him, but he does not sufficiently deny the allegations of paragraph fourth, which, by reference to the schedule annexed to the complaint, sets forth the items of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. S. L. & D. Dress & Costume Co. v. EcksteinAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1924
  2. Sinram Bros. v. Naples Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Green v. Harris Beach & WilcoxAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  2. Harbor Seafood, Inc. v. Quality Fish Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  3. Brozyna v. AndreskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1958
  4. Ias Bicor Corp. v. MezrahiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API