Case Name: Ruth H. Van Court, Respondent, v. Benjamin F. Jay et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Name of B. F. Jay & Company, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1945-06-15
Citations: 269 A.D. 824
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ruth H. Van Court, Respondent, v. Benjamin F. Jay et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Name of B. F. Jay & Company, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 269
Pages: 824–825

Head Matter:
Ruth H. Van Court, Respondent, v. Benjamin F. Jay et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Name of B. F. Jay & Company, Appellants.

Opinion:
Martin, P. J.
(dissenting). The. agreement sued on may not be read as imposing upon the defendants an absolute agreement to pay a minimum royalty in any event; the obEgation is to pay the minimum royalty named or suffer the revocation of the Ecense. (Wing v. Ansonia Clock Co., 102 N. Y. 531; Ebert v. Loewenstein, 42 App. Div. 109.) The motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted.
Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur in decision; Martin, P. J , dissents in opinion.
Order affirmed, with $20-costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendants to answer within ten days after service of order, on payment of said costs. No opinion. [See post, p. 843.]