Ph. Van Ommeren Corp. v. Rothe

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ph. Van Ommeren Corp. v. Rothe

123 Misc. 141, 204 N.Y.S. 227, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1295, 1924 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9985

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 11, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 123 Misc. 141 (Ph. Van Ommeren Corp. v. Rothe) 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

Ph. Van Ommeren Corp. v. Rothe, 123 Misc. 141, 204 N.Y.S. 227, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1295, 1924 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9985 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Crain, J.

The action was brought to recover money due and unpaid under a written contract executed by the defendant for [142]*142the rental of a membership certificate of the New York Produce Exchange. At the trial the defendant offered parol testimony, which was admitted over plaintiff’s objection and exception, tending to show that he executed the instrument as an agent of a third party and that the plaintiff, through its broker, had knowledge of this agency. The evidence was inadmissible to reheve the defendant from personal liability, while it might have been admissible in an action to hold the principal. Gordon Malting Co. v. Bartels Brewing Co., 206 N. Y. 528; Meyer v. Redmond, 205 id. 478.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs, to appellant to abide the event.

Bijur and McCook, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.

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

Crain, J.

The action was brought to recover money due and unpaid under a written contract executed by the defendant for [142]*142the rental of a membership certificate of the New York Produce Exchange. At the trial the defendant offered parol testimony, which was admitted over plaintiff’s objection and exception, tending to show that he executed the instrument as an agent of a third party and that the plaintiff, through its broker, had knowledge of this agency. The evidence was inadmissible to reheve the defendant from personal liability, while it might have been admissible in an action to hold the principal. Gordon Malting Co. v. Bartels Brewing Co., 206 N. Y. 528; Meyer v. Redmond, 205 id. 478.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs, to appellant to abide the event.

Bijur and McCook, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 Misc. 141, 204 N.Y.S. 227, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1295, 1924 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ph-van-ommeren-corp-v-rothe-nyappterm-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack