Parkus v. Credit Clearing House

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Parkus v. Credit Clearing House

115 N.Y.S. 98

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 5, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 115 N.Y.S. 98 (Parkus v. Credit Clearing House) 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

Parkus v. Credit Clearing House, 115 N.Y.S. 98 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

DAYTON, J.

This is an action to recover for services as stenographer, rendered upon the employment of an attorney retained and. paid by defendant. The attorney testified that with the consent of [99]*99defendant’s representative plaintiff was engaged to take minutes in a certain proceeding. The value of the services is not questioned, nor was the attorney’s testimony corroborated. Defendant’s representative specifically denied the testimony of the attorney, and stated that defendant had in its employ a stenographer competent for the work, whom said attorney knew. Plaintiff failed to establish his cause of action by a preponderance of proof. See Sherry v. Proal, 125 App. Div. 508, 109 N. Y. Supp. 1008, approving Losee v. Morey, 57 Barb. 562.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

DAYTON, J.

This is an action to recover for services as stenographer, rendered upon the employment of an attorney retained and. paid by defendant. The attorney testified that with the consent of [99]*99defendant’s representative plaintiff was engaged to take minutes in a certain proceeding. The value of the services is not questioned, nor was the attorney’s testimony corroborated. Defendant’s representative specifically denied the testimony of the attorney, and stated that defendant had in its employ a stenographer competent for the work, whom said attorney knew. Plaintiff failed to establish his cause of action by a preponderance of proof. See Sherry v. Proal, 125 App. Div. 508, 109 N. Y. Supp. 1008, approving Losee v. Morey, 57 Barb. 562.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 N.Y.S. 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parkus-v-credit-clearing-house-nyappterm-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack