Morgenthau-Seixas Co. v. Putterman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morgenthau-Seixas Co. v. Putterman

285 A.D. 939, 139 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6191

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 939 (Morgenthau-Seixas Co. v. Putterman) 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

Morgenthau-Seixas Co. v. Putterman, 285 A.D. 939, 139 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

The amended complaint clearly sets forth a cause of action based upon the oral agreement pleaded in paragraph nineteenth and it is pleaded in accordance with the terms of the opinion upon which leave to amend was based. The reference to the modification of the prior written agreement is inconsequential and, as written, does not enable the plaintiff to establish a case except upon the oral contract. Nor is the promise on which the plaintiff sues too indefinite for enforcement. The compensation claimed by the plaintiff is based upon “the services rendered by the plaintiff in effecting such contract o£ sale”. That constitutes a definite measure'for determining the sum due it. The plaintiff may recover the reasonable value of such services in the event that it should be successful in establishing its claim upon the trial. Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Present — Peck, P. J., Callahan, Bastow, Botein and Rabin, JJ. [See post, p. 1050.]

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

The amended complaint clearly sets forth a cause of action based upon the oral agreement pleaded in paragraph nineteenth and it is pleaded in accordance with the terms of the opinion upon which leave to amend was based. The reference to the modification of the prior written agreement is inconsequential and, as written, does not enable the plaintiff to establish a case except upon the oral contract. Nor is the promise on which the plaintiff sues too indefinite for enforcement. The compensation claimed by the plaintiff is based upon “the services rendered by the plaintiff in effecting such contract o£ sale”. That constitutes a definite measure'for determining the sum due it. The plaintiff may recover the reasonable value of such services in the event that it should be successful in establishing its claim upon the trial. Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Present — Peck, P. J., Callahan, Bastow, Botein and Rabin, JJ. [See post, p. 1050.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 939, 139 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgenthau-seixas-co-v-putterman-nyappdiv-1955.