Jackson v. Hunt, Hill and Betts
| Decision Date | 18 December 1956 |
| Parties | Robert McLeod JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUNT, HILL and BETTS, Charles B. Hill, Geo. Whitefield Betts, Jr., et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
S. H. Borak, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
J. E. Freehill, New York City, for defendants-respondents. Before BOTEIN, J. P., and RABIN, FRANK, VALENTE and BERGAN, JJ.
There is sufficient ambiguity in the law partnership agreement in respect of the distributable interest of plaintiff as a retiring partner to indicate a trial rather than a disposition of the first two causes of action on the pleading. We hold merely that there is ambiguity enough to warrant the consideration of such proof as to actual practice in the firm and other evidence in support of what was understood and acted upon by the partners. Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the motion denied in its entirety. Order filed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Hunt, Hill & Betts
...at Special Term under rule 106 for insufficiency in law. This earlier judgment was reversed by the Appellate Division (2 A.D.2d 971, 157 N.Y.S.2d 394, 395) which remanded the action for trial in a memorandum stating: 'There is sufficient ambiguity in the law partnership agreement in respect......
-
People v. O'Donnell
... ... Dec. 18, 1956 ... N. Carley, Jackson Heights, for defendant-appellant ... I. Anolik, New York ... ...
-
Jackson v. Hunt, Hill & Betts
...M. FRANK and STEVENS, JJ., who dissent in part and vote to affirm. M. M. FRANK, Justice (dissenting in part). On a prior appeal (2 A.D.2d 971, 157 N.Y.S.2d 394) we held that the contract in question was ambiguous and warranted a trial ' as to the actual practice in the firm and other eviden......