(dissenting). The indisputable documentary evidence bearing on the main issues presented was of such a character that a finding in favor of plaintiffs was required. (Duryea v. Zimmerman, 143 App. Div. 60, 68; Susquehanna Silk Mills v. Jacobson, 185 id. 378, 383. See, also, Bernstein v. Kritzer, 253 N. Y. 410, 416.) I, therefore, dissent and vote to reverse and grant judgment for the plaintiffs as prayed for in the complaint and to dismiss the counterclaims.
254 A.D. 663
(April 22, 1938.)
Nicholas Roerich, Helena Roerich, Maurice M. Lichtmann, Sina Lichtmann and Frances R. Grant, Appellants, v. Louis L. Horch, Nettie S. Horch, and Master Institute of United Arts, Inc., Respondents.
Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.; O’Malley, J., dissents; dissenting opinion by O’Malley, J.
Roerich v. Horch
254 A.D. 663
Case Details
254 A.D. 663
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!