Louda v. Revillon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Louda v. Revillon

99 A.D. 431, 91 N.Y.S. 194

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 1, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 99 A.D. 431 (Louda v. Revillon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Louda v. Revillon, 99 A.D. 431, 91 N.Y.S. 194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Ingraham, J.:

This action cannot be sustained as an action at law for the recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due to the plaintiff by reason of his employment by the defendants. There is no allegation that plaintiff sustained damages by the breach of the contract, nor that, under plaintiff’s agreement with the defendants, the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of money for which the action is brought. The relief asked is that the defendants be compelled to account to the plaintiff for the money due the plaintiff under the contract hereinbefore mentioned, and that the judgment for the amount found to be due the plaintiff on such an accounting be entered in favor of the plaintiff. Admitting all of the allegations of the complaint, it would be impossible to enter judgment for a sum of money against the defendant until after the accounting which the plaintiff demands. The cause of action being in equity for an accounting, it was quite unnecessary to examine one of the defendants before trial to ascertain the condition of the account. If, upon the trial, the plaintiff would be entitled to an accounting, the court at Special Term could direct an interlocutory judgment requiring the defendants to account when the accounting could be had. It is unnecessary upon this motion to determine whether or not the action for an -accounting could be maintained. If the complaint had alleged that the profits of the business were an amount named, and that under his contract he was entitled to recover fifteen per cent of that amount and had asked judgment therefor, the action would then be at law for the recovery of the amount stated, but as there is no allegation in the complaint from which it would follow that a sum of money is due the plaintiff, there is no basis for a recovery of more than nominal damages in an action at law.

[433]*433The court was, therefore, right in vacating the order for the examination of the defendant, and the order must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

O’Brien, McLaughlin and Hatch, JJ., concurred; Van Brunt, P. J., concurred in result.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Ingraham, J.:

This action cannot be sustained as an action at law for the recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due to the plaintiff by reason of his employment by the defendants. There is no allegation that plaintiff sustained damages by the breach of the contract, nor that, under plaintiff’s agreement with the defendants, the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of money for which the action is brought. The relief asked is that the defendants be compelled to account to the plaintiff for the money due the plaintiff under the contract hereinbefore mentioned, and that the judgment for the amount found to be due the plaintiff on such an accounting be entered in favor of the plaintiff. Admitting all of the allegations of the complaint, it would be impossible to enter judgment for a sum of money against the defendant until after the accounting which the plaintiff demands. The cause of action being in equity for an accounting, it was quite unnecessary to examine one of the defendants before trial to ascertain the condition of the account. If, upon the trial, the plaintiff would be entitled to an accounting, the court at Special Term could direct an interlocutory judgment requiring the defendants to account when the accounting could be had. It is unnecessary upon this motion to determine whether or not the action for an -accounting could be maintained. If the complaint had alleged that the profits of the business were an amount named, and that under his contract he was entitled to recover fifteen per cent of that amount and had asked judgment therefor, the action would then be at law for the recovery of the amount stated, but as there is no allegation in the complaint from which it would follow that a sum of money is due the plaintiff, there is no basis for a recovery of more than nominal damages in an action at law.

[433]*433The court was, therefore, right in vacating the order for the examination of the defendant, and the order must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

O’Brien, McLaughlin and Hatch, JJ., concurred; Van Brunt, P. J., concurred in result.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D. 431, 91 N.Y.S. 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louda-v-revillon-nyappdiv-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack