Lebolt & Co. v. Maloney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lebolt & Co. v. Maloney

241 A.D. 98, 271 N.Y.S. 428, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8177

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 4, 1934·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The agreement alleged in the complaint is not within the Statute of Frauds because it involved the substitution of the liability of the defendant for the liability of his son. This constituted an original undertaking by the defendant. (Meriden Britannia Co. v. Zingsen, 48 N. Y. 247; Mallory v. Gillett, 21 id. 412.)

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted.

Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, Martin, O'Malley and Untermyer, JJ.

Order reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

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

Per Curiam.

The agreement alleged in the complaint is not within the Statute of Frauds because it involved the substitution of the liability of the defendant for the liability of his son. This constituted an original undertaking by the defendant. (Meriden Britannia Co. v. Zingsen, 48 N. Y. 247; Mallory v. Gillett, 21 id. 412.)

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted.

Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, Martin, O'Malley and Untermyer, JJ.

Order reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

Lebolt & Co. v. Maloney, 241 A.D. 98, 271 N.Y.S. 428, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8177 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

241 A.D. 98 (Lebolt & Co. v. Maloney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related