1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.
  4. 278 A.D.
  5. 278 A.D. 90 (1951)
 

LATHAM & CO. v. MAYFLOWER INDUS.

278 A.D. 90 (1951)

E. B. Latham & Company, Respondent, v. Mayflower Industries et al., Defendants-Appellants, and Thor Corporation, Defendant-Respondent

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

March 13, 1951.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mortimer S. Gordon of counsel (Leroy C. Curtis with him on the brief; Gordon, Brady, Caffrey & Keller, attorneys), for appellants.

Edward H. McAloon (William T. Mulcahy and Nathan Hirschberg with him on the brief), for plaintiff-respondent.

Franklin B. Lincoln, Jr. of counsel (Lundgren & Lincoln, attorneys), for defendant-respondent.

PECK, P. J., GLENNON and SHIENTAG, JJ., concur with COHN, J.; CALLAHAN, J., dissents and votes to affirm, in opinion.

COHN, J.

Prior to March 10, 1950, defendant Mayflower Industries (hereafter called "Mayflower") was a distributor of home laundry products manufactured by defendant Thor Corporation (hereafter called "Thor") pursuant to an oral agreement between Thor and Mayflower. The agreement provided that Mayflower was to be Thor's distributor in certain counties in New Jersey; and that Mayflower with plaintiff E. B. Latham...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases