Douglas v. Leonard

City of New York Municipal Court

Douglas v. Leonard

14 N.Y.S. 274, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 179, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1942

DecidedApril 24, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 14 N.Y.S. 274 (Douglas v. Leonard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Douglas v. Leonard, 14 N.Y.S. 274, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 179, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1942 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Newburgher, J.

This action was brought to recover for services as an accountant. George W. Parsons, Mrs. Reed, and defendant were executors of the will of Ebenezer Reed, deceased, and Parsons and defendant were trustees under the same will. It appears that plaintiff and Parsons were brothers-in-law, and occupied offices in the same building. Plaintiff and defendant met at Parsons’ office, and the subject of an accounting and proper examination of the affairs of the Reed estate, and other matters, were discussed between plaintiff, Parsons, and defendant, and plaintiff was employed, subject to approval by Mrs. Reed, who subsequently consented to such employment. At the close of plaintiff’s case, defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint—First, because there was no personal or individual employment of the plaintiff by the defendant; second, that the proofs show that the employment of the plaintiff, if any, was by Parsons, Mrs. Reed, and defendant, and Mrs. Reed, being alive, should have been joined; which motion was denied, and defendant excepted. We think the trial justice erred. The motion was a proper one, and should have been granted. Plaintiff’s testimony and exhibits show that, throughout his employment, he consulted with Parsons and Leonard, and communicated with Mrs. Reed, and that the services rendered by him were for their benefit. If there was any employment, it was by Parsons, Mrs. Reed, and the defendant. For these reasons the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs.

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

Newburgher, J.

This action was brought to recover for services as an accountant. George W. Parsons, Mrs. Reed, and defendant were executors of the will of Ebenezer Reed, deceased, and Parsons and defendant were trustees under the same will. It appears that plaintiff and Parsons were brothers-in-law, and occupied offices in the same building. Plaintiff and defendant met at Parsons’ office, and the subject of an accounting and proper examination of the affairs of the Reed estate, and other matters, were discussed between plaintiff, Parsons, and defendant, and plaintiff was employed, subject to approval by Mrs. Reed, who subsequently consented to such employment. At the close of plaintiff’s case, defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint—First, because there was no personal or individual employment of the plaintiff by the defendant; second, that the proofs show that the employment of the plaintiff, if any, was by Parsons, Mrs. Reed, and defendant, and Mrs. Reed, being alive, should have been joined; which motion was denied, and defendant excepted. We think the trial justice erred. The motion was a proper one, and should have been granted. Plaintiff’s testimony and exhibits show that, throughout his employment, he consulted with Parsons and Leonard, and communicated with Mrs. Reed, and that the services rendered by him were for their benefit. If there was any employment, it was by Parsons, Mrs. Reed, and the defendant. For these reasons the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.Y.S. 274, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 179, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-v-leonard-nynyccityct-1891.