Darrow v. Clipper Manufacturing Co.

48 Misc. 635, 96 N.Y.S. 194
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJuly 1, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 Misc. 635 (Darrow v. Clipper Manufacturing 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
Darrow v. Clipper Manufacturing Co., 48 Misc. 635, 96 N.Y.S. 194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Opinion

MacLean, J.

Heretofore, in an action in the City Court between these parties, the plaintiff sued for goods sold and delivered by his assignor, consisting of clips and trays, itemized in the bill of particulars, and upon orders running from June 5, 1901, to August nineteenth, following. In that action, as appears from the judgment-roll, the plaintiff having withdrawn all his claim except for trays, judgment was entered upon the verdict of a jury in his favor. Subsequently, and herein, in the Municipal Court, the plaintiff, as assignor, declared in three causes for these clips, viz., for work, labor and services at an agreed sum, upon a quantum meruit and for goods sold and delivered, and elected to stand upon the second cause. His complaint was dismissed, and properly, for the evidence discloses a running account between the defendant and the plaintiff’s assignor, with the rendition of monthly statements of the gross amounts due, and upon [636]*636orders which were sometimes for trays, sometimes for clips, and sometimes for both, within the dates above mentioned. When suit was brought in the City Court, the claim of the plaintiff was single or entire, for “ in the case of a running account, it may be fairly implied that it is in pursuance of an agreement that an account may be opened and continued, either for a definite period or at-the pleasure of one or both of the parties ” (Secor v. Sturgis, 16 N. Y. 548, 558) ; and, therefore, judgment there obtained bars the present claim.

Scott and GildePuSlbeve, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Frank J. Lennon Co. v. New York Mail Co.
81 Misc. 251 (New York Supreme Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 Misc. 635, 96 N.Y.S. 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darrow-v-clipper-manufacturing-co-nyappterm-1905.