Huber v. Ely

New York Supreme Court

Huber v. Ely

45 Barb. 169, 1865 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 129

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 4, 1865

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 Barb. 169 (Huber v. Ely) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huber v. Ely, 45 Barb. 169, 1865 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 129 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1865).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Johnson, J.

If the fact found by the referee in his second finding of facts is sustained by the evidence, there can be no question in regard to the defendant's liability to pay the plaintiff for all his labor during the entire “fire." According to this, the defendant purchased the property, with all the advantages and avail's of the plaintiff's labor, before the term of his labor had half expired, and agreed with the vendor, in consideration, to pay the plaintiff for that portion of his work which he had already performed, the plaintiff to continue and complete the term of his labor. This is not a case affected by the statute of frauds. It is the promise of one deriving a benefit by means of the undertaking, and having funds placed in .his hands for the payment of the indebtedness, which he promises, in consideration thereof, to discharge. (Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N. Y. Rep. 268. Mallory v. Gillett, 21 id. 412. Burr v. Beers, 24 id. 178.)

It can not be said that this finding is destitute of evidence to sustain it. Indeed it appears to me that the preponderance of the evidence is decidedly in favor of the finding. The other questions were all, I think, properly decided by the referee.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

Johnson, E. Darwin Smith and James C. Smith, Justices.]

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

By the Court, Johnson, J.

If the fact found by the referee in his second finding of facts is sustained by the evidence, there can be no question in regard to the defendant's liability to pay the plaintiff for all his labor during the entire “fire." According to this, the defendant purchased the property, with all the advantages and avail's of the plaintiff's labor, before the term of his labor had half expired, and agreed with the vendor, in consideration, to pay the plaintiff for that portion of his work which he had already performed, the plaintiff to continue and complete the term of his labor. This is not a case affected by the statute of frauds. It is the promise of one deriving a benefit by means of the undertaking, and having funds placed in .his hands for the payment of the indebtedness, which he promises, in consideration thereof, to discharge. (Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N. Y. Rep. 268. Mallory v. Gillett, 21 id. 412. Burr v. Beers, 24 id. 178.)

It can not be said that this finding is destitute of evidence to sustain it. Indeed it appears to me that the preponderance of the evidence is decidedly in favor of the finding. The other questions were all, I think, properly decided by the referee.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

Johnson, E. Darwin Smith and James C. Smith, Justices.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 Barb. 169, 1865 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huber-v-ely-nysupct-1865.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack