Case Name: Advance Lamp Shade Corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph Bloom and Another, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Consolidated Gas Iron Co. and Co-operative Specialty Co., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1925-06-06
Citations: 125 Misc. 829
Docket Number: 
Parties: Advance Lamp Shade Corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph Bloom and Another, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Consolidated Gas Iron Co. and Co-operative Specialty Co., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 829–830

Head Matter:
Advance Lamp Shade Corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph Bloom and Another, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Consolidated Gas Iron Co. and Co-operative Specialty Co., Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
June 6, 1925.
Frank Wasserman, for the appellant.
Daniel Handler, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
Judgment affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs.
The causes of action in the first action and in the present action arose out of the same contract. When plaintiff instituted the first action, the breach sued for in the second action had occurred. The first action should have embraced all the breaches then existing. (Bendernagle v. Cocks, 19 Wend. 207; Pakas v. Hollingshead, 184 N. Y. 211, 215; Secor v. Sturgis, 16 id. 548, 554; Goldberg v. Eastern Brewing Co., 136 App. Div. 692, 693; Henderson Tire & Rubber Co. v. Wilson & Son, 235 N. Y. 489, 497.) The correctness of the decisions in Peruvian Panama Hat Co. v. Marcus (164 N. Y. Supp. 821) and in Rusch v. Klausner (117 id. 1074) seems to be questioned by the opinion in the later case of Hutt v. Hausman (118 Misc. 448) in the same court.
Present: Cropsey, Lazansky and MacCrate, JJ.