Legal Opinion
Welch v. T. W. Warner Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 17, 1930PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOOLSEY, District Judge.
The motion to amend the complaint is denied because the proposed amended complaint does not state a cause of action against the defendant.
And, as it is apparent that the plaintiff has not a cause of action against the defendant, an order for a judgment dismissing with costs the original complaint, now on file, may he entered.
I. When the escrow agreement with the Security & Savings Bank at Pasadena was made by the plaintiff’s assignor, Andrews, and the defendant, the time, place, and method of performance was thereby prescribed. It was Andrews’ duty meticulously to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Citizens Nat. Bank of Roswell v. DavissonSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Rubin v. SiegelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
- Mechanics' National Bank of Providence v. JonesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Cheatham v. Wheeling & L. E. Ry. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1930
- A. L. Gosselin Corp. v. Mario Tapparelli fu Pietro of America, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Goetz v. Interlake S. S. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1931
- Societe Vinicole De Champagne v. Mumm Champagne & Importation Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1935
- Arrow Mill Development Corp. v. ShopRite of Clinton (In Re Arrow Mill Development Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · 1995
- Park v. Warner Bros.District Court, S.D. New York · 1934
- Bickford's, Inc. v. Federal Reserve BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.