Melle v. Candelora

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Melle v. Candelora

88 N.Y.S. 385

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 19, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 385 (Melle v. Candelora) 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

Melle v. Candelora, 88 N.Y.S. 385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

The contract upon which defendants rely is written in English. The plaintiff knows no English, and is unable to read either that language or Italian. There was a conflict of evidence as to whether the agreement was translated to him, or, if translated, whether it was ■correctly translated. Unless the plaintiff knew what he was signing, lie cannot be held bound by the written contract. As between him and the persons connected with the so-called Law and Collection Agency, no fault can be found with the justice, if he believed plaintiff. Finding, as he must have done, that the plaintiff did not know what he was signing, the justice was justified in permitting oral evidence of what the real agreement was. And again, no fault can be found if he believed plaintiff. If plaintiff’s story be accepted, the money deposited by him, and for which he sues, was not earned, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

SCOTT, J.

The contract upon which defendants rely is written in English. The plaintiff knows no English, and is unable to read either that language or Italian. There was a conflict of evidence as to whether the agreement was translated to him, or, if translated, whether it was ■correctly translated. Unless the plaintiff knew what he was signing, lie cannot be held bound by the written contract. As between him and the persons connected with the so-called Law and Collection Agency, no fault can be found with the justice, if he believed plaintiff. Finding, as he must have done, that the plaintiff did not know what he was signing, the justice was justified in permitting oral evidence of what the real agreement was. And again, no fault can be found if he believed plaintiff. If plaintiff’s story be accepted, the money deposited by him, and for which he sues, was not earned, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.Y.S. 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melle-v-candelora-nyappterm-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack