Noll v. Levy

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Noll v. Levy

35 Misc. 800, 72 N.Y.S. 1121

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Misc. 800 (Noll v. Levy) 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

Noll v. Levy, 35 Misc. 800, 72 N.Y.S. 1121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover the amount due upon a certain contract for electrical work and materials. The amount due to the plaintiff is not disputed. The defendants are sued as copartners, the allegation being that Geo. W. Levy and Bernard S. Levy, his father, did business as partners under Geo. W. Levy’s name. The plaintiff’s testimony on this subject is that Bernard S. Levy made statements to him to the effect that he was embarrassed, and could do no business in his own name, and, therefore, did it under cover of his son’s name. He certainly was active in the supervision of the work. Any copartnership is denied by both defendants, but their attempted explanations of the elder Levy’s connection with the work are contradictory and unsatisfactory. Hpon the whole the evidence was sufficient to justify the finding that they were jointly engaged in the enterprise [801]*801in connection with which the plaintiff did work. It was attempted •to show that the plaintiff consented to a composition between Geo. W. Levy and his creditors. • The evidence tendered to support this plea was that plaintiff had said that he would agree to • anything a majority of the creditors agreed to, and that a majority of the creditors did agree to refrain from bringing action for a certain period. This was all denied by the plaintiff and the justice found in his favor upon the issue.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover the amount due upon a certain contract for electrical work and materials. The amount due to the plaintiff is not disputed. The defendants are sued as copartners, the allegation being that Geo. W. Levy and Bernard S. Levy, his father, did business as partners under Geo. W. Levy’s name. The plaintiff’s testimony on this subject is that Bernard S. Levy made statements to him to the effect that he was embarrassed, and could do no business in his own name, and, therefore, did it under cover of his son’s name. He certainly was active in the supervision of the work. Any copartnership is denied by both defendants, but their attempted explanations of the elder Levy’s connection with the work are contradictory and unsatisfactory. Hpon the whole the evidence was sufficient to justify the finding that they were jointly engaged in the enterprise [801]*801in connection with which the plaintiff did work. It was attempted •to show that the plaintiff consented to a composition between Geo. W. Levy and his creditors. • The evidence tendered to support this plea was that plaintiff had said that he would agree to • anything a majority of the creditors agreed to, and that a majority of the creditors did agree to refrain from bringing action for a certain period. This was all denied by the plaintiff and the justice found in his favor upon the issue.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 800, 72 N.Y.S. 1121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noll-v-levy-nyappterm-1901.