Blumenstiel v. Fleitmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blumenstiel v. Fleitmann

69 N.Y.S. 665

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

DecidedApril 4, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 69 N.Y.S. 665 (Blumenstiel v. Fleitmann) 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

Blumenstiel v. Fleitmann, 69 N.Y.S. 665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We think this motion was properly denied. Under the agreement between the plaintiffs and Heer & Co., the plaintiffs were entitled to “50$ of all amounts hereafter collected, whether remittance is made direct by Pleitmann & Co. and Dreyfus, Kohn & Co., or the United States government, to Heer & Co., or through Blumenstiel & Hirsch.” This contemplated that Heer & Co. were not to become liable to the plaintiffs until after the amount which had been collected from the United States government had actually been remitted to and received by Heer & Co. This being so, manifestly the plaintiffs have no right to prevent Pleitmann & Co., as the agents and representatives of Heer & Co., from remitting to that firm whatever sums they have collected or may collect from the United States government.

The order appealed from is right, and must be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

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

PER CURIAM.

We think this motion was properly denied. Under the agreement between the plaintiffs and Heer & Co., the plaintiffs were entitled to “50$ of all amounts hereafter collected, whether remittance is made direct by Pleitmann & Co. and Dreyfus, Kohn & Co., or the United States government, to Heer & Co., or through Blumenstiel & Hirsch.” This contemplated that Heer & Co. were not to become liable to the plaintiffs until after the amount which had been collected from the United States government had actually been remitted to and received by Heer & Co. This being so, manifestly the plaintiffs have no right to prevent Pleitmann & Co., as the agents and representatives of Heer & Co., from remitting to that firm whatever sums they have collected or may collect from the United States government.

The order appealed from is right, and must be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 N.Y.S. 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blumenstiel-v-fleitmann-nyappdiv-1901.