Legal Opinion

In re the Arbitration between Gold & Broido, Inc.

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 23, 1945Published

1Opinion of the CourtBlair, J.

The petitioner’s application to Special Term under section 1450 of the Civil Practice Act having been .opposed by an answer denying consent to submit differences to arbitration, the Special Term referred the issues to Trial Term to determine whether the instrument in question represented a contract between the parties, and whether the person signing on behalf of respondent had authority so to do (N. Y. L. J., May 22, 1945, p. 1949, col. 7).

" The respondent is a dealer in rugs and carpets and from time to time receives such article^ from customers to be cleaned and repaired. Under instructions…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Marchant v. Mead-Morrison Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. Matter of Lehman v. OstrovskyNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
  3. Sandler v. Commonwealth Station Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  4. Blossom v. . DoddNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
  5. Matter of Tanenbaum Textile Co. v. SchlangerNew York Court of Appeals · 1942

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API