Moon v. Marks

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Moon v. Marks

35 Misc. 810, 72 N.Y.S. 1120

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Misc. 810 (Moon v. Marks) 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

Moon v. Marks, 35 Misc. 810, 72 N.Y.S. 1120 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Aside from other questions, there are some .undisputed facts, which fully support the conclusion of the learned court below. These may be briefly stated. There is no proof of any employment of the plaintiff by the defendant association, to render the services claimed for. There is a lack of evidence that they were rendered for the association by, even the suggestion of itself, or any of its officers. It also appears that the plaintiff represented /one of the associate corporations, in the association, and that the services rendered by him were as representative of that corporation, with a strong probability that he was compensated therefor by it. We think the court below was right.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Aside from other questions, there are some .undisputed facts, which fully support the conclusion of the learned court below. These may be briefly stated. There is no proof of any employment of the plaintiff by the defendant association, to render the services claimed for. There is a lack of evidence that they were rendered for the association by, even the suggestion of itself, or any of its officers. It also appears that the plaintiff represented /one of the associate corporations, in the association, and that the services rendered by him were as representative of that corporation, with a strong probability that he was compensated therefor by it. We think the court below was right.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 810, 72 N.Y.S. 1120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moon-v-marks-nyappterm-1901.