Case ID: misc_5/html/0593-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Newburger, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Campbell v. Jimenes et al.
    
      William F. Randel, for plaintiff (respondent).
    
      Tracy, Boardmam & Platt, for defendants (appellants)..
   Newburger, J.

Our appellate court having held (Campbell v. Jimenes, 3 Misc. Rep. 144) that the terms of the contract between plaintiff and defendant were ambiguous, and that the meaning of the instrument can only be determined by a jury, the trial justice, therefore, properly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

There appears to be no other exception in the case of merit,. and judgment must, therefore* be affirmed, with costs.

Ehrlich, Ch. J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.