Legal Opinion

Levi v. L. A. Thompson Scenic Railway

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided December 15, 1926PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Since the agreement in suit is on its face a complete contract, separate and distinct from the agreement regarding the Hippodrome scene, it was error to admit evidence confusing the two separate contracts and regarding them as one agreement. The breach of a contract separate and distinct from the one in suit cannot be interposed as a defense to the agreement that is being litigated in the case at bar. (Dixon & Co. v. Bronston Bros. & Co., 171 App. Div. 552.)

Defendant’s Exhibit M should have been excluded from the evidence, since it is not a contract between the parties and it in itself tends…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. William J. Dixon & Co. v. Bronston Bros. & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ranger Const. Co. v. Dixie Floor Co., Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1977
  2. Kaiser Trading Co. v. Associated Metals & Minerals Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1970
  3. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Film Classics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API