Muller v. S. Aronson & Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Muller v. S. Aronson & Co.

88 N.Y.S. 1006

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 23, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 1006 (Muller v. S. Aronson & Co.) 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

Muller v. S. Aronson & Co., 88 N.Y.S. 1006 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon oral pleadings, the plaintiff sought recovery for work, labor, and services and materials furnished by his assignor, and furnished an itemized statement of the particulars of his claim, totaling the sum of $149. With the exception of two particulars—the stands and motors—there is no evidence of items, labor, or value to support the claim. -In fact, with the exception of the motors, the receipt of the remaining items was denied. The testimony of the assignor to the presentation of a bill for $149, and to a statement of Mr. Aronson that “I am going to send a check after the 1st”—by him in each regard denied—is clearly too indefinite and insufficient to 'support a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for an amount even greater than his claim.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon oral pleadings, the plaintiff sought recovery for work, labor, and services and materials furnished by his assignor, and furnished an itemized statement of the particulars of his claim, totaling the sum of $149. With the exception of two particulars—the stands and motors—there is no evidence of items, labor, or value to support the claim. -In fact, with the exception of the motors, the receipt of the remaining items was denied. The testimony of the assignor to the presentation of a bill for $149, and to a statement of Mr. Aronson that “I am going to send a check after the 1st”—by him in each regard denied—is clearly too indefinite and insufficient to 'support a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for an amount even greater than his claim.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.Y.S. 1006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muller-v-s-aronson-co-nyappterm-1904.