Legal Opinion

Johns-Manville International Corp. v. Insul-Fil Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 22, 1963PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtSamuel H. Hoestadter, J.

Motion to dismiss amended complaint on the ground that the Canton of Basel, Confederation of Switzerland, is a necessary party without whose presence in the action the court should not proceed is denied. The action is for breach of warranty in respect of material supplied by the defendants to the plaintiffs, for installation by the latter in a hospital in Switzerland pursuant to a contract between one of them and Basel. The defendants argue that under the recent relaxation of the rule of priority in actions'for breach of warranty (Randy Knitwear v. American Cyanamid Co., 11 N Y 2d 5; Goldberg…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Matter of United States of Mexico v. SchmuckNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
  2. Matter of United States of Mexico v. SchmuckNew York Court of Appeals · 1944
  3. Keene v. ChambersNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
  4. Bergman v. Liverpool & London & Globe InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
  5. Kirsch v. 33 West 56th Street, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1962

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Johns-Manville International Corp. v. Insul-Fil Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API