Legal Opinion
Murphy v. Mahoney
New York Supreme Court
Decided August 19, 1946PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDeyo, J.
The complaint fails to strictly comply with the requirements of rule 92 of the Rules of Civil Practice, in that it neglects to state that the plaintiff has “ duly ” performed all of the conditions of the contract. Such omission has been held fatal. (Walker v. Gerli, 257 App. Div. 249, 253; Zaiss v. Heimerdinger Co., 193 App. Div. 671; Hedges v. Pioneer Iron Works, 166 App. Div. 208, 209; Kasen v. Hercules Knitting Co., 60 N. Y. S. 2d 381.) However, the complaint does allege the making of tire contract for the sale 'of the-business, the down payment, the securing of the lessor’s consent, the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Walker v. GerliAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
- Germania Life Insurance v. PotterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Mitchell v. Vermont Copper Mining Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1876
- De Goode v. BurtonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- Hedges v. Pioneer Iron WorksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Johnson v. EdmundsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
- Murphy v. MahoneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946