Legal Opinion
Paul Armstrong Co. v. Majestic Motion Picture Co.
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided October 15, 1914PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtFinelite, J.
This action came on for trial on October 14, 1914, before this court and jury to recover the sum of $1,000 as advance royalties. At the end of the plaintiff’s case a motion was made by the defendant to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove facts sufficient to constitute the cause of action mentioned in the complaint and on the specific grounds that the plaintiff has affirmatively proved an agreement which was intended to be made with the defendant through a person not having authority to bind the defendant, and that the party acting for the defendant had…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United States v. BeebeSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Barrett v. . the Third Avenue R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Mandeville v. . ReynoldsNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Stone v. Bank of CommerceSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Arthur v. . Homestead Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1879
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- People v. MillsCity of New York Municipal Court · 1936
- Paul Armstrong Co. v. Majestic Motion Picture Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1915