O'Reilly v. Gerry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Reilly v. Gerry

249 A.D. 850, 292 N.Y.S. 533, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9986

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D. 850 (O'Reilly v. Gerry) 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'Reilly v. Gerry, 249 A.D. 850, 292 N.Y.S. 533, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a breach of a contract of employment for life, which plaintiff alleges was made orally with him by the chairman of the executive committee, the chief officer of the unincorporated association of which the defendant is treasurer, and was ratified by the association through its executive committee, judgment for defendant, dismissing the complaint on the merits at the close of plaintiff’s proofs, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The contract, even if thus made and ratified, is so vague and indefinite as to be unenforcible. (Varney v. Ditmars, 217 N. Y. 223; Wallach v. Mendelson, 115 Misc. 499.) Concededly, the chairman had no power to make the alleged contract on behalf of the association. Plaintiff failed to produce proof that the executive committee ratified the making of it. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

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

In an action for a breach of a contract of employment for life, which plaintiff alleges was made orally with him by the chairman of the executive committee, the chief officer of the unincorporated association of which the defendant is treasurer, and was ratified by the association through its executive committee, judgment for defendant, dismissing the complaint on the merits at the close of plaintiff’s proofs, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The contract, even if thus made and ratified, is so vague and indefinite as to be unenforcible. (Varney v. Ditmars, 217 N. Y. 223; Wallach v. Mendelson, 115 Misc. 499.) Concededly, the chairman had no power to make the alleged contract on behalf of the association. Plaintiff failed to produce proof that the executive committee ratified the making of it. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 850, 292 N.Y.S. 533, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oreilly-v-gerry-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack