Fleet v. Weinberg

City of New York Municipal Court

Fleet v. Weinberg

2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 421

DecidedJune 15, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 421 (Fleet v. Weinberg) 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

Fleet v. Weinberg, 2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 421 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

McAdam, Ch. J.

Both parties testified substantially to the effect that at the time the contracts were made, it [422]*422was not their intention that the property to be bought' should be delivered to or accepted by the plaintiff; on the contrary, that they expected to settle at the appointed time the differences in value, based on the rise or fall of the market. Such a contract is void (Ball v. Davis, 1 St. R. 518). If the plaintiff had testified that he intended to have carried out the contract according to its terms, expected to receive and pay for the stock at the appointed time, the question of bonafides would have been submitted to the jury, as in Cyrus v. Portman (1 City Ct. Supplt. 1). But on the admissions of the parties, the contract was a mere disguise for gambling, is a wager within the statute, and not enforceable (70 N. Y. 205).

Under the circumstances, the complaint was properly dismissed, and the motion for a new trial must be denied.

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

McAdam, Ch. J.

Both parties testified substantially to the effect that at the time the contracts were made, it [422]*422was not their intention that the property to be bought' should be delivered to or accepted by the plaintiff; on the contrary, that they expected to settle at the appointed time the differences in value, based on the rise or fall of the market. Such a contract is void (Ball v. Davis, 1 St. R. 518). If the plaintiff had testified that he intended to have carried out the contract according to its terms, expected to receive and pay for the stock at the appointed time, the question of bonafides would have been submitted to the jury, as in Cyrus v. Portman (1 City Ct. Supplt. 1). But on the admissions of the parties, the contract was a mere disguise for gambling, is a wager within the statute, and not enforceable (70 N. Y. 205).

Under the circumstances, the complaint was properly dismissed, and the motion for a new trial must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleet-v-weinberg-nynyccityct-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack