Bonime v. Hurwitz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonime v. Hurwitz

123 N.Y.S. 131

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 17, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 123 N.Y.S. 131 (Bonime v. Hurwitz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bonime v. Hurwitz, 123 N.Y.S. 131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff, a physician, sues for services rendered to the ■ daughter and granddaughter of the defendant. The testimony alleged [132]*132to establish defendant’s liability was given by one Charnow, who says that defendant authorized him to tell the physician that he (the defendant) would pay for the services. The witness testifies positively, however, that he told the physician only that the defendant would “guarantee” the bill, and the guaranty was certainly not in writing. The plaintiff testifies that he had conversations with the defendant on the telephone and in person, but there is not a word as to the substance of these talks. Under these circumstances defendant is not liable. The obligation which the witness communicated to the doctor was a guaranty, and this was neither authorized by the defendant nor was it in writing. The obligation which the witness testified he was authorized to incur he never communicated to the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff, a physician, sues for services rendered to the ■ daughter and granddaughter of the defendant. The testimony alleged [132]*132to establish defendant’s liability was given by one Charnow, who says that defendant authorized him to tell the physician that he (the defendant) would pay for the services. The witness testifies positively, however, that he told the physician only that the defendant would “guarantee” the bill, and the guaranty was certainly not in writing. The plaintiff testifies that he had conversations with the defendant on the telephone and in person, but there is not a word as to the substance of these talks. Under these circumstances defendant is not liable. The obligation which the witness communicated to the doctor was a guaranty, and this was neither authorized by the defendant nor was it in writing. The obligation which the witness testified he was authorized to incur he never communicated to the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 N.Y.S. 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonime-v-hurwitz-nyappterm-1910.