Locker v. Heiserman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Locker v. Heiserman

123 Misc. 157, 204 N.Y.S. 803, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 877

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 29, 1924

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 Misc. 157 (Locker v. Heiserman) 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

Locker v. Heiserman, 123 Misc. 157, 204 N.Y.S. 803, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s assignor, the “ Business Men’s Institute,” entered into a written contract with defendant which provided for a course of instruction in English to be given defendant by instructors in the employ of the Business Men’s Institute. Defendant agreed to pay for such instruction fifteen dollars on March 18, 1923, and fifteen dollars on the twenty-eighth of each month thereafter until one hundred and forty dollars was paid. After the contract was signed and before any instruction was given defendant notified plaintiff that he could not take up the course because of the condition of his business, and the alleged illness of his wife. This was apparently sufficient to enlist the sympathy of the trial justice who gave judgment for defendant. It does not, however, constitute a legal defense which would relieve defendant from his obligation under the written contract.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Guy, Wagner and Wasservogel, JJ.

Judgment reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s assignor, the “ Business Men’s Institute,” entered into a written contract with defendant which provided for a course of instruction in English to be given defendant by instructors in the employ of the Business Men’s Institute. Defendant agreed to pay for such instruction fifteen dollars on March 18, 1923, and fifteen dollars on the twenty-eighth of each month thereafter until one hundred and forty dollars was paid. After the contract was signed and before any instruction was given defendant notified plaintiff that he could not take up the course because of the condition of his business, and the alleged illness of his wife. This was apparently sufficient to enlist the sympathy of the trial justice who gave judgment for defendant. It does not, however, constitute a legal defense which would relieve defendant from his obligation under the written contract.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Guy, Wagner and Wasservogel, JJ.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 Misc. 157, 204 N.Y.S. 803, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/locker-v-heiserman-nyappterm-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack