Legal Opinion
Haussmann v. Colonial Trust Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 2, 1938PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COXE, District Judge.
The plaintiffs advance two theories upon which they say the complaint in this action may be sustained as against the defendant C-D, Inc., namely: (1) That a cause of action is stated for malicious interference with contractual rights; and (2) that a cause of action is stated for knowingly causing an impairment of the *214lien of the mortgage*. I do not think that either theory is tenable.
The first theory is based on a long line of cases which hold that it is actionable for a third party intentionally to induce a breách of a contract. Posner Co. v. Jackson, 223 N.Y. 325, 119.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hornstein v. PodwitzNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Lamb v. S. Cheney & SonNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Sullivan v. . RossonNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Prudence Co. v. 160 West Seventy-Third Street Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- S. C. Posner Co. v. JacksonNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Michelsen v. PenneyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- United States v. Carolina Eastern Chemical Co., Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1986
- Michelsen v. PenneyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1941
- Haussmann v. Colonial Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
- Perth Amboy National Bank v. BrodskyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1960
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.