Marcile v. Salztman

New York Supreme Court

Marcile v. Salztman

6 N.Y. St. Rep. 48

New York Supreme Court·Decided December 14, 1886·Published

Opinion

Dykman, J.

The complaint sets up an indebtedness of the defendant’s testatrix for goods sold and delivered, and also for a nursery, which was sold by her and which belonged to the plaintiff.

If a recovery is realized under this complaint it will be on a contract implied by law in favor of the plaintiff. The action is founded on contract and not on a tort, and the account involved is of sufficient length to justify the order' of reference.

[49]*49The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.

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

Dykman, J.

The complaint sets up an indebtedness of the defendant’s testatrix for goods sold and delivered, and also for a nursery, which was sold by her and which belonged to the plaintiff.

If a recovery is realized under this complaint it will be on a contract implied by law in favor of the plaintiff. The action is founded on contract and not on a tort, and the account involved is of sufficient length to justify the order' of reference.

[49]*49The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.

Marcile v. Salztman, 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 48 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1886).

Pincite

6 N.Y. St. Rep. 48 (Marcile v. Salztman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.