Hyperlawhypertext legal database Van Court v. Jay 269 A.D. 824

← Cases

Van Court v. Jay

269 A.D. 824 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1945-06-15 English

Delivered by Martin, P. J.

Contents

Dissent

p. 824
Ruth H. Van Court, Respondent, v. Benjamin F. Jay et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Name of B. F. Jay & Company, Appellants.

(dissenting). The. agreement sued on may not be read as imposing upon the defendants an absolute agreement to pay a minimum royalty in any event; the obEgation is to pay the minimum royalty named or suffer the revocation of the Ecense. (Wing v. Ansonia Clock Co., 102 N. Y.

p. 825
531 ; Ebert v. Loewenstein, 42 App. Div. 109 .) The motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted.

Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur in decision; Martin, P. J , dissents in opinion.

Order affirmed, with $20-costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendants to answer within ten days after service of order, on payment of said costs. No opinion. [See post, p. 843.]