Legal Opinion
Bril v. Suomen Pankki Finlands Bank
New York Supreme Court
Decided April 6, 1950PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHalpern, J.
This action was brought to recover damages for anticipatory breach of an irrevocable letter of credit alleged to have been issued by the defendant bank in favor of the plaintiff.
The action was commenced by the attachment of the defendant’s property in this State. After the defendant had appeared and answered, the plaintiff moved under rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice to strike out certain denials in the answer as sham and the defendant made a cross motion for a dismissal of the complaint under rule 106 for insufficiency on its face.
Upon the argument of the motions, the attorneys for…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cherwien v. GeiterNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Courteen Seed Co. v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Arams v. AramsNew York Supreme Court · 1943
- Courteen Seed Co. v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Ernesto Foglino & Co. v. WebsterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Venizelos, S.A. v. Chase Manhattan BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
- John P. Loebig v. George H. LarucciCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
- Sound of Market Street, Inc. v. Continental Bank InternationalCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Bamberger Polymers International Corp. v. Citibank, N. A.New York Supreme Court · 1983