Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1906

Olenick v. Haber

Olenick v. Haber
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 27, 1906
97 N.Y.S. 1142 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Schleimer Schleimer (Max Schleimer, of counsel), for a pellant., Henry J. Block, for respondents.

Olenick v. Haber

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

There seems to have be* sufficient testimony introduced without obje *1143on, tending to show that the gas ranges, the abject of this action, were the property of le Northern Union Gas Company at the time aey were agreed to be conveyed to the plaintiff y the defendants, which agreement was after-rards consummated. Upon the question of merer of the contract made between the parties i the subsequent warranty deed given by the efendant, this court, in the case of Wynne . Friedman (Dec. Term) 96 N. Y. Supp. 838, eld upon a similar state of facts that no merger iok place, and a judgment for the value of be ranges was affirmed. Judgment reversed, nd new trial ordered, with costs to appellant o abide the event.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.