Legal Opinion
Kranze v. Cinecolor Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 12, 1951PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
McGOHEY, District Judge.
This is an action on an employment ■contract. Defendant moves for summary judgment and to vacate plaintiff’s notice of examination. Since the former is granted, the latter need not be decided.
The contract, signed by all three parties, is set out in an appendix.
Plaintiff’s claim is that the defendant is liable for the payment of salary alleged to be due under the contract. The complaint is based on the contract as it stands. It is not claimed that it is invalid or the result of fraud or mistake. Nevertheless the plaintiff asserts that the contract is ambiguous as to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- National City Bank of NY v. HotchkissSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Hotchkiss v. National City Bank of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1911
- General Phoenix Corp. v. CabotNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
- Ernst v. Mechanics' & Metals Nat. Bank of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1912
- Brainard v. N.Y.C.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- The Chase Manhattan Bank, a National Banking Association v. The First Marion Bank, a Banking CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1971