Legal Opinion

Hi Fashion Wigs, Inc. v. Peter Hammond Advertising, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided July 2, 1973PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Chief Judge Fuld.

The plaintiff, Hi Fashion Wigs, Inc., and the defendant-appellant, Peter Hammond Advertising, Inc. (hereafter referred to as Hammond), entered into a contract whereby the plaintiff retained Hammond as its agent to place its advertising in various magazines. The plaintiff’s president, Mike Schuminsky, the impleaded defendant-respondent herein, signed an agreement personally guaranteeing payment by the plaintiff of all moneys due to Hammond under the contract. The sole question posed by this appeal is whether Schuminsky is subject to the jurisdiction of our courts under our…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  3. McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. Davis v. WellsSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  5. White v. . CorliesNew York Court of Appeals · 1871

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Hoffritz for Cutlery, Inc. And Edwin Jay, Inc. v. Amajac, Ltd. And Jack E. AyersCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
  2. McGowan v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  3. George Reiner & Co. v. SchwartzNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
  4. Zartolas v. NisenfeldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
  5. Rosenblit v. DanaherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988

41 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