Lajos v. Eden Musee American Co.

City of New York Municipal Court

Lajos v. Eden Musee American Co.

6 Misc. 626, 27 N.Y.S. 1132, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 872

DecidedJanuary 15, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Misc. 626 (Lajos v. Eden Musee American Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lajos v. Eden Musee American Co., 6 Misc. 626, 27 N.Y.S. 1132, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 872 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Newburger, J.

This action was brought to recover $150, claimed to be due, arising from deductions that had been made by the defendant from the salary that became payable to plaintiff.

The answer, among other defenses, alleged that the contract sued upon is void as being within the Statute of Frauds. On the trial of the action the defendant moved at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, as well as at the end of the trial, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the contract is within the Statute of Frauds,, as not to be performed within one year, :and, therefore, no recovery can be had on any such oral contract, which motion was denied and exception taken. The trial justice properly denied the motion to dismiss. There was a complete contract between the parties by reason of the correspondence and telegrams between them. A careful examination of the printed case fails to disclose any errors on the trial that would warrant us in disturbing the judgment herein.

Fitzsimons and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Newburger, J.

This action was brought to recover $150, claimed to be due, arising from deductions that had been made by the defendant from the salary that became payable to plaintiff.

The answer, among other defenses, alleged that the contract sued upon is void as being within the Statute of Frauds. On the trial of the action the defendant moved at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, as well as at the end of the trial, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the contract is within the Statute of Frauds,, as not to be performed within one year, :and, therefore, no recovery can be had on any such oral contract, which motion was denied and exception taken. The trial justice properly denied the motion to dismiss. There was a complete contract between the parties by reason of the correspondence and telegrams between them. A careful examination of the printed case fails to disclose any errors on the trial that would warrant us in disturbing the judgment herein.

Fitzsimons and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Misc. 626, 27 N.Y.S. 1132, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lajos-v-eden-musee-american-co-nynyccityct-1894.