Friedland v. Goodman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedland v. Goodman

110 N.Y.S. 374

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 110 N.Y.S. 374 (Friedland v. Goodman) 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

Friedland v. Goodman, 110 N.Y.S. 374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Tbe plaintiff claimed commissions on sales of tobacco for the defendant. The issues were as to the amount of tobacco sold and the amount of the commissions paid. All material testimony on both sides was received without objection, and presents a sharp conflict. The conclusion of the trial judge that the plaintiff had failed to establish the cause of action alleged is warranted. There is no legal proof, however, to support the defendant’s counterclaim. The only testimony is: “We advanced him the $54.” This is not evidence of a loan, or of the terms or conditions under which it was made. So far as appears,.it may have been an advance on account of commissions to be earned. Schlesinger v. Burland, 42 Misc. Rep. 206, 85 N. Y. Supp. 350; N. W. Mut. v. Mooney, 108 N. Y. 118, 15 N. E. 303.

The judgment and order should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

Tbe plaintiff claimed commissions on sales of tobacco for the defendant. The issues were as to the amount of tobacco sold and the amount of the commissions paid. All material testimony on both sides was received without objection, and presents a sharp conflict. The conclusion of the trial judge that the plaintiff had failed to establish the cause of action alleged is warranted. There is no legal proof, however, to support the defendant’s counterclaim. The only testimony is: “We advanced him the $54.” This is not evidence of a loan, or of the terms or conditions under which it was made. So far as appears,.it may have been an advance on account of commissions to be earned. Schlesinger v. Burland, 42 Misc. Rep. 206, 85 N. Y. Supp. 350; N. W. Mut. v. Mooney, 108 N. Y. 118, 15 N. E. 303.

The judgment and order should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 N.Y.S. 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedland-v-goodman-nyappterm-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack