Legal Opinion

Gibbs v. Holden

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1930PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPersonius, J.

This motion was made under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and rule 107, on the ground that it appeared that the contract was not in writing and, therefore, unenforeible under the Statute of Frauds.

The complaint does not state that the contract .alleged was oral, and no affidavit was presented, but it was conceded at the argument that the contract was not in writing. This concession is reiterated in both briefs.

The same motion was previously made but allowed to lapse. Apparently neither…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Mallory v. . GillettNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
  2. White v. . RintoulNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
  3. Raabe v. . SquierNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
  4. Richardson Press v. . AlbrightNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
  5. Ackley v. . ParmenterNew York Court of Appeals · 1885

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Carey & Associates v. ErnstAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
  2. Kossick v. United Fruit Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1958
  3. Healy v. BrotmanNew York Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Kahn v. NaitoveNew York Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Carey & Associates v. ErnstAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API