From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sorensen v. Philip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1928
225 App. Div. 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1928)

Opinion

November, 1928.


Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The learned trial court erred in directing a verdict, because a question of fact existed which should have been submitted to the jury, to wit: Whether or not the indemnity agreement was intended to cover the bond executed on May 22, 1926, upon which judgment bad already been entered against the plaintiffs in this action, or whether it was intended to cover a new bond intended to be executed to provide for Berghoffen's remaining within the jail limits. Furthermore, this court has heretofore held that a question of fact existed by the affirmance of the order denying a motion for summary judgment. Rich, Young, Seeger and Scudder, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P.J., dissents.


Summaries of

Sorensen v. Philip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1928
225 App. Div. 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1928)
Case details for

Sorensen v. Philip

Case Details

Full title:ALFRED R. SORENSEN and THOMAS DONIGAN, Respondents, v. MORRIS PHILIP…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 1, 1928

Citations

225 App. Div. 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1928)

Citing Cases

Sorensen v. Philip

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Lazansky, P.J., Rich, Kapper and Scudder, JJ., concur;…