Begly v. Weddigen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Begly v. Weddigen

83 N.Y.S. 805, 86 A.D. 629

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 24, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 83 N.Y.S. 805 (Begly v. Weddigen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Begly v. Weddigen, 83 N.Y.S. 805, 86 A.D. 629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case the agreement signed by the defendants provided that they were to pay the plaintiff nothing for his services and disbursements in case of failure to obtain the abatements or recoveries mentioned in the contract. In Stedwell v. Hartmann, 74 App. Div. 126, 77 N. Y. Supp. 498, the agreement expressly provided that everything that was done thereunder by plaintiff’s testator was “to be done at his own expense.” This is the only apparent differ[806]*806ence between the two cases, and is not, we think, sufficient to distinguish the case at bar from the Stedwell Case. Inasmuch as the latter has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals on the opinion below (173 N. Y. 624, 66 N. E. 1117), the opinion of Mr. Justice Patterson must be taken as settling the law, and is a controlling authority in this case for the affirmance of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this case the agreement signed by the defendants provided that they were to pay the plaintiff nothing for his services and disbursements in case of failure to obtain the abatements or recoveries mentioned in the contract. In Stedwell v. Hartmann, 74 App. Div. 126, 77 N. Y. Supp. 498, the agreement expressly provided that everything that was done thereunder by plaintiff’s testator was “to be done at his own expense.” This is the only apparent differ[806]*806ence between the two cases, and is not, we think, sufficient to distinguish the case at bar from the Stedwell Case. Inasmuch as the latter has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals on the opinion below (173 N. Y. 624, 66 N. E. 1117), the opinion of Mr. Justice Patterson must be taken as settling the law, and is a controlling authority in this case for the affirmance of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 N.Y.S. 805, 86 A.D. 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/begly-v-weddigen-nyappdiv-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack