Jules-Wallace & Co. v. R. A. Management, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Jules-Wallace & Co. v. R. A. Management, Inc.

148 Misc. 180, 265 N.Y.S. 202, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1602

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 148 Misc. 180 (Jules-Wallace & Co. v. R. A. Management, Inc.) 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

Jules-Wallace & Co. v. R. A. Management, Inc., 148 Misc. 180, 265 N.Y.S. 202, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Under the authorities it would seem that the validity of the assignment herein is to be tested as of the date when the power of attorney was executed. (Thompson v. Erie R. R. Co., 207 N. Y. 171; Thompson v. Gimbel Bros., 71 Misc. 126; affd., 145 App. Div. 436; affd., 207 N. Y. 659.) So tested the assignment is void as against public policy or at least not enforcible in an action at law against the employer, for the reason that it is an assignment of wages under a contract for employment not then existing. (Cooper v. Douglass, 44 Barb. 409; Williston Cont. § 414; Restatement, Contracts, § 154, subd. 2.)

Judgment affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs.

All concur; present, Lydon, Callahan and Frankenthaler, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Under the authorities it would seem that the validity of the assignment herein is to be tested as of the date when the power of attorney was executed. (Thompson v. Erie R. R. Co., 207 N. Y. 171; Thompson v. Gimbel Bros., 71 Misc. 126; affd., 145 App. Div. 436; affd., 207 N. Y. 659.) So tested the assignment is void as against public policy or at least not enforcible in an action at law against the employer, for the reason that it is an assignment of wages under a contract for employment not then existing. (Cooper v. Douglass, 44 Barb. 409; Williston Cont. § 414; Restatement, Contracts, § 154, subd. 2.)

Judgment affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs.

All concur; present, Lydon, Callahan and Frankenthaler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 Misc. 180, 265 N.Y.S. 202, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jules-wallace-co-v-r-a-management-inc-nyappterm-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack