January, 1923.
Order reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and application granted, with ten dollars costs. Applied to the present case, there could be no waiver of arbitration before trial by the interposition of an answer. ( Matter of Berkovitz v. Arbib Houlberg, 230 N.Y. 273.) Kelly, P.J., Rich, Jaycox, Manning and Kapper, JJ., concur.
Full title:GEORGE L. HILTL CO., INC., Respondent, v. MARCUS BISCHOFF, Appellant
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Date published: Jan 1, 1923
The bond was, in form, strictly in accordance with the requirements of the code; but, even conceding that it…
Farley v. LanhamThe appeal bond in the case upon which suit has been brought provided that: "Appellants should duly prosecute…