From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CAMPBELL v. JIMENES ET AL

City Court of New York — General Term
Oct 1, 1893
5 Misc. 593 (N.Y. City Ct. 1893)

Opinion

October, 1893.

William F. Randel, for plaintiff (respondent).

Tracy, Boardman Platt, for defendants (appellants).


Our appellate court having held ( Campbell v. Jimenes, 3 Misc. 144) that the terms of the contract between plaintiff and defendant were ambiguous, and that the meaning of the instrument can only be determined by a jury, the trial justice, therefore, properly denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

There appears to be no other exception in the case of merit, and judgment must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

EHRLICH, Ch. J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

CAMPBELL v. JIMENES ET AL

City Court of New York — General Term
Oct 1, 1893
5 Misc. 593 (N.Y. City Ct. 1893)
Case details for

CAMPBELL v. JIMENES ET AL

Case Details

Full title:CAMPBELL v . JIMENES et al

Court:City Court of New York — General Term

Date published: Oct 1, 1893

Citations

5 Misc. 593 (N.Y. City Ct. 1893)