Nahoum v. N. E. Marcoglou & Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Nahoum v. N. E. Marcoglou & Co.

146 N.Y.S. 1063

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 14, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 146 N.Y.S. 1063 (Nahoum v. N. E. Marcoglou & 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

Nahoum v. N. E. Marcoglou & Co., 146 N.Y.S. 1063 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

This action was brought to recover the agreed price of certain tobaccos. Defendant, as appears from its name, is a corporation duly organized under, the law of the state of New York. Its incorporation was not completed until August 25, 1913. Whatever admissions of liability were sought on the trial to be charged against it in respect of the transactions sued upon were made prior to that date, and were therefore manifestly not binding upon it. There is no claim that subsequent to its incorporation it adopted these admissions expressly or impliedly. There is not a scintilla of testimony as to anything done by -or said on behalf of the company after its incorporation, nor is there any evidence that it received the goods sued for.

It is elementary, therefore, that the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

This action was brought to recover the agreed price of certain tobaccos. Defendant, as appears from its name, is a corporation duly organized under, the law of the state of New York. Its incorporation was not completed until August 25, 1913. Whatever admissions of liability were sought on the trial to be charged against it in respect of the transactions sued upon were made prior to that date, and were therefore manifestly not binding upon it. There is no claim that subsequent to its incorporation it adopted these admissions expressly or impliedly. There is not a scintilla of testimony as to anything done by -or said on behalf of the company after its incorporation, nor is there any evidence that it received the goods sued for.

It is elementary, therefore, that the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 N.Y.S. 1063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nahoum-v-n-e-marcoglou-co-nyappterm-1914.