O'Connor v. Hudson River Day Line

269 A.D. 960, 58 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4750
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 29, 1945
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 269 A.D. 960 (O'Connor v. Hudson River Day Line) 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
O'Connor v. Hudson River Day Line, 269 A.D. 960, 58 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Opinion

Action to recover damages for breach of a contract to pay plaintiff a commission for his services in bringing about the requisitioning of a steamer by a department of the United States Government. Judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered on a verdict of a jury, reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. The proof presented an issue of fact as to whether or not the plaintiff had been engaged to procure the requisitioning of the steamer involved as well as to procure a buyer therefor. Implicit in the verdict of the jury is a finding that the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the requisitioning of the steamer. There is no proof that he was such procuring cause and, if there be a scintilla of proof thereof, the finding that he was the procuring cause is against the weight of evidence. As the contract is one affecting the United States in the exercise of its constitutional functions, the rights and obligations of the parties thereto present Federal questions. Accordingly the Federal rule and not the State rule in respect of public policy is controlling, finder that doctrine the contract herein is void and unenforcible. (U. S. v. Allegheny County, 322 U. S. 174, 183; Hazelton v. Sheckells, 202 U. S. 71, 79; American Seating Co. v. Zell, 322 U. S. 709; Muschany v. United States, 324 U. S. 49, 64.) Carswell, Lewis and Aldrich, JJ., concur; Hagarty, Acting P. J., and Adel, J., concur in result.

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

Related

Federal Pacific Electric Co. v. McAdams
207 Misc. 525 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1955)
Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. De Wald Radio Mfg. Corp.
194 Misc. 81 (New York Supreme Court, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 A.D. 960, 58 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oconnor-v-hudson-river-day-line-nyappdiv-1945.