Legal Opinion
Horby Realty Corp. v. Yarmouth Land Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 17, 1946PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Per curiam
Parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning which custom or usage has given to words or terms as used in any particular trade or business or in any particular locality. (Newhall v. Appleton, 114 N. Y. 140, 144; Gumbinsky Bros. Co. v. Smalley, 203 App. Div. 661, 667, affd. 235 N. Y. 619; Lipson v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., 266 App. Div. 595, 597; 3 Williston on Contracts [Rev. ed.], § 650; 1 Greenleaf on Evidence [16th ed.], § 295.) Whether the term “ existing viola-, tions ”, as employed in the case at bar, has by custom and usage acquired a special meaning presents a fact question which…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Newhall v. . AppletonNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Gumbinsky Bros. v. SmalleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Gumbinsky Bros. Company v. . SmalleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Lipson v. Bradford Dyeing Ass'n of U. S. A.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kraft v. LoweDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1950
- Zurakov v. Register.Com, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Seroff v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1957
- Isbrandtsen Co. v. Lyncroft Grain Corp.City of New York Municipal Court · 1957
- Young v. KarolAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1975