Haynes v. McTigue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haynes v. McTigue

243 A.D. 529

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D. 529 (Haynes v. McTigue) 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

Haynes v. McTigue, 243 A.D. 529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment dismissing complaint on the merits in an action for an accounting reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. In our opinion the plaintiff is entitled to an accounting by the defendant of the moneys received by him for services as an expert witness during the existence of the partnership agreement and to recover his share thereof under the contract, unless it shall appear upon the trial that the parties, by their conduct, gave to the seventh clause of said contract a practical construction under which the defendant was entitled to retain said moneys. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

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

Judgment dismissing complaint on the merits in an action for an accounting reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. In our opinion the plaintiff is entitled to an accounting by the defendant of the moneys received by him for services as an expert witness during the existence of the partnership agreement and to recover his share thereof under the contract, unless it shall appear upon the trial that the parties, by their conduct, gave to the seventh clause of said contract a practical construction under which the defendant was entitled to retain said moneys. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-mctigue-nyappdiv-1934.