Clark v. Chilton Paint Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Clark v. Chilton Paint Co.

111 N.Y.S. 655

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 30, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 111 N.Y.S. 655 (Clark v. Chilton Paint Co.) 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

Clark v. Chilton Paint Co., 111 N.Y.S. 655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinions

GILDERSLEEVE, P. J.

The evidence of the plaintiff, which the court had a right to believe, shows that plaintiff was hired by defendant to introduce defendant to the naval authorities, and defendant agreed to pay a commission on all sales resulting from such introduction, and that certain sales did so result. Defendant admits employing plaintiff, but claims that plaintiff had to render additional services besides such introduction. The court gave judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. The issue is essentially a question of fact, with sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the trial justice. The errors of law are not so serious as to call for a reversal.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

SEABURY, J., concurs.

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

GILDERSLEEVE, P. J.

The evidence of the plaintiff, which the court had a right to believe, shows that plaintiff was hired by defendant to introduce defendant to the naval authorities, and defendant agreed to pay a commission on all sales resulting from such introduction, and that certain sales did so result. Defendant admits employing plaintiff, but claims that plaintiff had to render additional services besides such introduction. The court gave judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. The issue is essentially a question of fact, with sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the trial justice. The errors of law are not so serious as to call for a reversal.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

SEABURY, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 N.Y.S. 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-chilton-paint-co-nyappterm-1908.