Dittenfass v. Horsley
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by. the defendants, David Horsley and others, from two orders of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 17th day of January, 1916, denying their motions to compel plaintiff to reply to new matter set up in their amended answers.
1Opinion of the Court
McLaughlin, J.:
This action was brought to procure a judgment decreeing the specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale and delivery of certain shares of the capital stock of the Universal Film Manufacturing Company.
The contract is alleged to have been entered into between the defendant William Horsley and one Lewis J. Selznick, plaintiff’s assignor, and the defendants Powers and David Horsley are alleged to have purchased the stock subsequent to the execution of the contract referred to — copy of which is annexed to and made a part of the complaint. Powers interposed a separate…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Schweitzer v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Actien GesellschaftAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Humboldt Exploration Co. v. FritschAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Phillips v. GrossmanAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1912
- Wyllys Co. v. NixonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
- Voisin v. MitchellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
3Cited by4 opinions
- O'Keefe v. Young & Rubicam, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
- Auster v. Princess Fabrics, Inc.City of New York Municipal Court · 1940
- Coffey v. RocheAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
- Livingston v. A. B. Dick Co.New York Supreme Court · 1932