Furman v. Acme Manifolding Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Furman v. Acme Manifolding Co.

269 A.D. 757, 54 N.Y.S.2d 624

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

DecidedApril 23, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D. 757 (Furman v. Acme Manifolding Co.) 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

Furman v. Acme Manifolding Co., 269 A.D. 757, 54 N.Y.S.2d 624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

is an action upon an assigned claim to recover a commission of 10% on all government business acquired by the defendant emanating from Washington, D. C. Plaintiff’s theory is that a commission in the amount stated accrued to her assignor for services rendered as defendant’s salesman or representative. Order, insofar as it denies defendant’s application for a bill of particulars stating the, names of the persons in the government service interviewed or solicited by the plaintiff’s assignor, together with the dates of such solicitations, claimed by the plaintiff to have resulted in the awarding of business to the defendant, reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. We are of opinion that the denial of the motion as contained in paragraph "3 (b) ” was an improvident exercise of discretion. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Lewis and Aldrich, JJ., concur.

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

is an action upon an assigned claim to recover a commission of 10% on all government business acquired by the defendant emanating from Washington, D. C. Plaintiff’s theory is that a commission in the amount stated accrued to her assignor for services rendered as defendant’s salesman or representative. Order, insofar as it denies defendant’s application for a bill of particulars stating the, names of the persons in the government service interviewed or solicited by the plaintiff’s assignor, together with the dates of such solicitations, claimed by the plaintiff to have resulted in the awarding of business to the defendant, reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. We are of opinion that the denial of the motion as contained in paragraph "3 (b) ” was an improvident exercise of discretion. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Lewis and Aldrich, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D. 757, 54 N.Y.S.2d 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furman-v-acme-manifolding-co-nyappdiv-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack