Ford v. Manville

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ford v. Manville

266 A.D. 911, 42 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5147

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 2, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 A.D. 911 (Ford v. Manville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ford v. Manville, 266 A.D. 911, 42 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s proof wholly failed to establish that he was the procuring cause of the sale of defendant’s yacht. His employment was not exclusive and it appears without substantial contradiction that others, acting for the defendant, actually interested the purchaser and conducted all the negotiations which resulted in the sale. The plaintiff was a complete stranger to these negotiations and had no part in ultimately bringing about the sale. The court should have directed a verdict for the defendant. We are not unmindful of the criticism of the remarks of the Trial Judge and the alleged errors in the charge. We consider, however, that since there was no substantial evidence in support of plaintiff’s claim, these matters should be disregarded and the judgment affirmed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s proof wholly failed to establish that he was the procuring cause of the sale of defendant’s yacht. His employment was not exclusive and it appears without substantial contradiction that others, acting for the defendant, actually interested the purchaser and conducted all the negotiations which resulted in the sale. The plaintiff was a complete stranger to these negotiations and had no part in ultimately bringing about the sale. The court should have directed a verdict for the defendant. We are not unmindful of the criticism of the remarks of the Trial Judge and the alleged errors in the charge. We consider, however, that since there was no substantial evidence in support of plaintiff’s claim, these matters should be disregarded and the judgment affirmed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D. 911, 42 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-manville-nyappdiv-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack