James McCreery & Co. v. Oppenheim

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

James McCreery & Co. v. Oppenheim

92 N.Y.S. 1130

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided February 28, 1905·Published

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

Whatever may have been the actual agreement between Sadie Jacobs and the defendants, it was not communicated to plaintiffs/ I think that under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence the defendants are estopped from denying responsibility for the amount sued for. The whole arrangement seems to have been devised with a view to giving Miss Jacobs credit on the faith of her apparent connection with defendants, and yet at the same time to leave an avenue of escape open in case of need. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

SCOTT, J.

Whatever may have been the actual agreement between Sadie Jacobs and the defendants, it was not communicated to plaintiffs/ I think that under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence the defendants are estopped from denying responsibility for the amount sued for. The whole arrangement seems to have been devised with a view to giving Miss Jacobs credit on the faith of her apparent connection with defendants, and yet at the same time to leave an avenue of escape open in case of need. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

James McCreery & Co. v. Oppenheim, 92 N.Y.S. 1130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

92 N.Y.S. 1130 (James McCreery & Co. v. Oppenheim) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.