Legal Opinion

Miller v. Associated Gas & Electric Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 16, 1935PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The complaint alleges a provision for repurchase as a part of a contract of sale of securities and the action is brought under such provision for repurchase. This clause is inherently one for rescission; it is not void under the Statute of Frauds (Pers. Prop. Law, § 85). (Johnston v. Trask, 116 N. Y. 136; Fitzpatrick v. Woodruff, 96 id. 561; Wooster v. Sage, 67 id. 67.) The Statute of Frauds is, therefore, not a defense to the cause of action pleaded. Further there is no controversy between the parties as to the provision for repurchase being an integral part of *268the original contract of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Johnston v. . TraskNew York Court of Appeals · 1889

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bushwick-Decatur Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1940
  2. Fischer v. CJ Lawrence & Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1979
  3. Miller v. Shell Oil Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1958
  4. Baron v. SchachterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API