Legal Opinion
Kaulhausen v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 12, 1949Published
1Per curiam
After giving the allegations of the complaint the benefit of every reasonable inference and intendment, we find that no cause of action has been pleaded against any of the defendants.
In an action to recover damages for wrongful interference with a prospective contract, it must be shown that the contract would have materialized but for the wrongful interference. (Union Car Adv. Co. v. Collier, 263 N. Y. 386; Portman v. Burack, 265 App. Div. 959, affd. 290 N. Y. 686; Newberry & Co. v. Warnecke & Co., 267 App. Div. 418, affd. 293 N. Y. 698.) The complaint herein fails to meet that requirement.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Union Car Advertising Co. v. CollierNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Newberry & Co. v. George W. Warnecke & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944
- Newberry Company, Inc. v. George W. Warnecke Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1944
- Portman v. BurackAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- Portman v. BurackNew York Court of Appeals · 1943