Goldman v. Davis

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldman v. Davis

84 N.Y.S. 1127

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 18, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 1127 (Goldman v. Davis) 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

Goldman v. Davis, 84 N.Y.S. 1127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

FREEDMAN, P. J.

Upon a careful examination of the whole case, it appears that the evidence given at the trial upon the issues raised by the pleadings required the submission to the jury of the questions whether the agreement to pay was made by the defendants, as claimed by the plaintiff, whether there was a consideration for it moving to the defendant, and whether, if there was such a consideration, it was so beneficial to the defendant that it made defendant’s agreement an original and independent undertaking, as distinguished from a collateral one, and that these questions were submitted to the jury under a full and well-considered charge, which carefully guarded all the right of the defendant, within the doctrine of White v. Rintoul, 108 N. Y. 222, 15 N. E. 318. The record discloses no reversible error. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

FREEDMAN, P. J.

Upon a careful examination of the whole case, it appears that the evidence given at the trial upon the issues raised by the pleadings required the submission to the jury of the questions whether the agreement to pay was made by the defendants, as claimed by the plaintiff, whether there was a consideration for it moving to the defendant, and whether, if there was such a consideration, it was so beneficial to the defendant that it made defendant’s agreement an original and independent undertaking, as distinguished from a collateral one, and that these questions were submitted to the jury under a full and well-considered charge, which carefully guarded all the right of the defendant, within the doctrine of White v. Rintoul, 108 N. Y. 222, 15 N. E. 318. The record discloses no reversible error. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 1127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-davis-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack