Shultz v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.

On a previous appeal in this case (249 App. Div. 88) we held that the instrument of September 26, 1928, was ambiguous and that plaintiffs had a right to introduce evidence to resolve the ambiguity and the case was sent back for a new trial. On the retrial the court received evidence relative to the ambiguity. On this proof we regard the instrument as a form of agency and the option provision as an incident to facilitate a sale and that *129it did not confer on the defendant the right to purchase the stock. (Greenough v. Willcox, 238 Mich. 52; 213 N. W. 175, 177.) At the close of the evidence, the…