Coleman v. Dorsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coleman v. Dorsen

234 A.D. 255, 254 N.Y.S. 771, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10404

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1932·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Sherman, J.

We cannot adopt the view that the complaint is to be sustained upon the theory that plaintiffs are the beneficiaries of the contract pleaded. They are parties to it. The complaint exhibits a unilateral contract whereunder the consideration is supplied by a third party. This is sufficient to sustain a cause of action for its breach. (Hamilton v. Hamilton, 127 App. Div. 871; 1 Williston Cont. § 114.)

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the respondents.

Finch, P. J., Merrell, McAvoy and Martin, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Sherman, J.

We cannot adopt the view that the complaint is to be sustained upon the theory that plaintiffs are the beneficiaries of the contract pleaded. They are parties to it. The complaint exhibits a unilateral contract whereunder the consideration is supplied by a third party. This is sufficient to sustain a cause of action for its breach. (Hamilton v. Hamilton, 127 App. Div. 871; 1 Williston Cont. § 114.)

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the respondents.

Finch, P. J., Merrell, McAvoy and Martin, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Coleman v. Dorsen, 234 A.D. 255, 254 N.Y.S. 771, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

234 A.D. 255 (Coleman v. Dorsen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related