Legal Opinion
Holt v. Feigenbaum
New York Court of Appeals
Decided February 24, 1981PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Gabrielli, J.
In the instant appeal, we are called upon to retrace some of the fundamental principles of contract law and to determine whether defendant’s written promise to indemnify his coshareholders against disproportionate loss was supported by legally sufficient consideration. Inasmuch as the promise by defendant induced his coshareholders to incur a specific, “bargained for” detriment, we conclude that there was sufficient consideration for his promise and that the promise is therefore enforceable at law, notwithstanding the fact that defendant may have enjoyed no…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hamer v. . SidwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank of JamestownNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Rector, Etc. v. . TeedNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Union Bank v. . SullivanNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Walton Water Co. v. . Village of WaltonNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Nassau Trust Co. v. Montrose Concrete Products Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Horsehead Industries, Inc. v. Paramount Communications, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- Anand v. WilsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Ferguson v. Lion Holdings, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2004
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.