Handler v. Peter Doelger Brewing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Handler v. Peter Doelger Brewing Corp.

259 A.D. 846, 20 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6954

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 19, 1940·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Action brought by the plaintiff, a solicitor .for the defendant, a brewer, to recover for services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant in aiding and assisting the defendant to obtain new customers for the defendant’s product and in keeping old customers of the defendant from transferring their business to the defendant’s competitors. The plaintiff alleged that the accounts of the defendant so served by the plaintiff purchased of the defendant at least 25,000 half barrels of beer, so that, by reason of the servces so rendered, plaintiff was entitled to receive an unpaid balance of $18,443.75. Order denying plaintiff’s motion for an order striking out defendant’s affirmative defense, contained in paragraph “ 2 ” of its answer, as insufficient in law, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur. [173 Misc. 173.]

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

Action brought by the plaintiff, a solicitor .for the defendant, a brewer, to recover for services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant in aiding and assisting the defendant to obtain new customers for the defendant’s product and in keeping old customers of the defendant from transferring their business to the defendant’s competitors. The plaintiff alleged that the accounts of the defendant so served by the plaintiff purchased of the defendant at least 25,000 half barrels of beer, so that, by reason of the servces so rendered, plaintiff was entitled to receive an unpaid balance of $18,443.75. Order denying plaintiff’s motion for an order striking out defendant’s affirmative defense, contained in paragraph “ 2 ” of its answer, as insufficient in law, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur. [173 Misc. 173.]

Handler v. Peter Doelger Brewing Corp., 259 A.D. 846, 20 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6954 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

259 A.D. 846 (Handler v. Peter Doelger Brewing Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related