Legal Opinion
Robinson's Women's Apparel, Inc. v. Union Bank & Trust Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 30, 1946PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RIFKIND, District Judge.
The agreement between plaintiff, as buyer, and Joseph Haft, as seller, provided that, in the event of a named contingency, the price, or the unpaid balance thereof, shall be paid to a third party, Abby Joy Haft. Were the agreement so drawn that the named contingency were the marriage of Abby Joy Haft or the death of a stranger to the contract, there is no question but that under California law the third party beneficiary could, upon the occurrence of the contingency, enforce the contract according to its terms. Section 1559 of the Civil Code of California provides that…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- McCarthy v. PieretNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Tennant v. John Tennant Memorial HomeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Noble v. LearnedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. ClarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Noble v. GardenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Estate of HoweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Toulouse v. New York Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1952
- Bendit v. IntaranteNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
- Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. ScarboroughCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1951
- Toulouse v. New York Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1952