Goldsmith v. Rabinowitz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldsmith v. Rabinowitz

117 N.Y.S. 118

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 27, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 117 N.Y.S. 118 (Goldsmith v. Rabinowitz) 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

Goldsmith v. Rabinowitz, 117 N.Y.S. 118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

DAYTON, J.

The bill of particulars states an agreement of partnership, the purchase of certain articles, time spent, and defendant’s refusal to enter into partnership relations. On the trial the partnership agreement was received in evidence, and the court thereupon gave judgment for the defendant, “without prejudice to a new action in the proper court.”

It would seem that by a liberal construction of the oral complaint, “Breach of contract and partnership agreement,” plaintiff might have proved a claim for damages for the breach. No partnership accounting was ever asked or involved. Only one question was put to the plaintiff as to what he did after the agreement was signed, and that was not answered.

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

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

DAYTON, J.

The bill of particulars states an agreement of partnership, the purchase of certain articles, time spent, and defendant’s refusal to enter into partnership relations. On the trial the partnership agreement was received in evidence, and the court thereupon gave judgment for the defendant, “without prejudice to a new action in the proper court.”

It would seem that by a liberal construction of the oral complaint, “Breach of contract and partnership agreement,” plaintiff might have proved a claim for damages for the breach. No partnership accounting was ever asked or involved. Only one question was put to the plaintiff as to what he did after the agreement was signed, and that was not answered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 N.Y.S. 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldsmith-v-rabinowitz-nyappterm-1909.