Berbling v. Glaser

3 Misc. 624
City of New York Municipal Court·Decided July 1, 1893·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Fitzsimons, J.

On June 12,1891, the defendant purchased from Messrs. Idler & Sutton, a restaurant in Stone street, this city. In addition to the purchase price, $1,000, mentioned in the bill of sale, it appears that defendant, as a further consideration, agreed to assume and pay the debts of Idler & Sutton, contracted as proprietors of said restaurant. One of the debtors was the plaintiff, to whom was owing $363.85.

[625]*625If there is sufficient evidence in the case establishing affirmatively the consideration or purchase price for said restaurant, as contended for by plaintiff, then there is no doubt that defendant, by making such agreement with Idler & Sutton, became not surety or guarantor for the payment of their debts above mentioned, but principal, and hable to such creditors previously and as original debtors, and their liability to pay such debts established.

The question whether or not such was the consideration price for said restaurant and the agreement made between defendant and Idler & Sutton,” was submitted to the jury and they found in the affirmative. A careful perusal of the whole evidence in the case convinces us that their finding was authorized and justified.

Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

McGown, J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Berbling v. Glaser, 3 Misc. 624 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

3 Misc. 624 (Berbling v. Glaser) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lyon v. Clochessy
43 Misc. 67 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)