Roerich v. Horch
254 A.D. 663
N.Y. App. Div.
1938
Check Treatment
O’Malley, J.

(dissenting). The indisputable documentary evidence bearing on the main issues presented was of such a character that a finding in favor of plaintiffs was required. (Duryea v. Zimmerman, 143 App. Div. 60, 68; Susquehanna Silk Mills v. Jacobson, 185 id. 378, 383. See, also, Bernstein v. Kritzer, 253 N. Y. 410, 416.) I, therefore, dissent and vote to reverse and grant judgment for the plaintiffs as prayed for in the complaint and to dismiss the counterclaims.