In Gross v. Mendel (225 N.Y. 633) the court held that the rate of exchange existing at the time of maturity would govern.
Summary of this case from Hampikian v. Mutual Life Insurance Co.Argued November 25, 1918
Decided December 10, 1918
James Garfield Moses for appellants.
Benjamin Berger for respondents.
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: HISCOCK, Ch. J., CHASE, HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND and ANDREWS, JJ. Not sitting: McLAUGHLIN, J.
In Gross v. Mendel (225 N.Y. 633) the court held that the rate of exchange existing at the time of maturity would govern.
Summary of this case from Hampikian v. Mutual Life Insurance Co.Full title:ALBERT B. GROSS et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of GROSS, ENGEL…
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Dec 10, 1918
The case most frequently cited for the proposition that New York employs the date-of-breach rule is Hoppe v…
Richard v. National City Bank of New York. No. 2']" That decision does not hold that the damages are to be measured by the value of rubles in New York city…