Legal Opinion
Wagner v. G. Gaudig & Blum Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 30, 1928PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Malley, J.
We are here concerned with the sufficiency of a complaint. It is based upon a written agreement, the interpretation of which presents the issue to be decided. The precise question is whether certain of its covenants are dependent or independent, and whether the contract is divisible and severable or whole and entire.
The agreement was made January 1, 1924, between the defendant *256and Charles F. Wagner, plaintiff’s husband. It recited that, “ For valuable consideration by each of the parties to the other in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,” the defendant agreed to and did…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rosenthal Paper Co. v. National Folding Box & Paper Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Ming v. . CorbinNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Alexander v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietyNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Brady v. . CassidyNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Winne v. . McDonaldNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
3Cited by9 opinions
- Tamez v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1999
- American Surety Co. v. RosenthalNew York Supreme Court · 1954
- Dixon v. Smyth Sales Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1933
- Steelman v. Camden Trust Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1944
- Alderman v. Central New York Arterial Markets, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.