From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Olenick v. Haber

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Feb 1, 1906
49 Misc. 653 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)

Opinion

February, 1906.

Schleimer Schleimer (Max Schleimer, of counsel), for appellant.

Henry Bloch, for respondents.


There seems to have been sufficient testimony, introduced without objection, tending to show that the gas ranges, the subject of this action, were the property of the Northern Union Gas Company at the time they were agreed to be conveyed to the plaintiff by the defendants, which agreement was afterward consummated. Upon the question of merger of the contract made between the parties, in the subsequent warranty deed given by the defendants, this court in the case of Wynne v. Friedman, 49 Misc. Rep. 616, held, upon a similar state of facts, that no merger took place and a judgment for the value of the ranges was affirmed.

Present: SCOTT, GIEGERICH and GREENBAUM, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.


Summaries of

Olenick v. Haber

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Feb 1, 1906
49 Misc. 653 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)
Case details for

Olenick v. Haber

Case Details

Full title:ALFRED OLENICK, Appellant, v . MORRIS HABER et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Feb 1, 1906

Citations

49 Misc. 653 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)
97 N.Y.S. 1142