Legal Opinion · Dissent
Van der Stegen v. Neuss, Hesslein & Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 31, 1934Published
1DissentUntermyer, J.
I dissent upon the ground that, without reference to other questions, the action of the coplaintiffs against the defendant is barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations applicable to actions for breach of contract (Civ. Prac. Act, § 48).
The contracts, for breach of which the coplaintiffs, as curators in bankruptcy of Laurent Van der Stegen, have recovered, were made between the Belgian Trading Company and the defendant Neuss, Hesslein & Co., Inc. The breach occurred on May 27, 1920. On June 20, 1920, the Belgian Trading Company, plaintiff’s assignor, instituted an action for the breach of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. WulfSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. KinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Harriss v. TamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Johnson v. . Phoenix Bridge Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Streeter v. Graham & Norton Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1933
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.