New York Supreme Court, 1894

Bowman, Thompson & Co. v. Fuerst

Bowman, Thompson & Co. v. Fuerst
New York Supreme Court · Decided March 16, 1894
28 N.Y.S. 168; 76 Hun 441; 83 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 441; 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 163 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

I. M. Dittenhoefer, for appellants., James Dunne, for respondent.

Bowman, Thompson & Co. v. Fuerst

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

As the right to maintain this action and the order of arrest granted herein both depend upon the construction to-be given to the agreement entered into between the parties to this action, and as this construction may depend upon the course of business of the parties under it, which course of business can only be satisfactorily established upon the trial, we think that upon this-appeal we should not attempt such construction, and therefore affirm the order appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements.

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