Phillips v. Silverzweig

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Phillips v. Silverzweig

102 N.Y.S. 459

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 4, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 N.Y.S. 459 (Phillips v. Silverzweig) 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

Phillips v. Silverzweig, 102 N.Y.S. 459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

GILDERSLEEVE, J.

On September 1, 1906, the parties to this action entered into a written agreement by which the plaintiff agreed to pay $950 for the purchase price of the contents of a cigar store owned by the defendant. The plaintiff paid the sum of $100, as the agreement stated, “on account,” and agreed to pay the balance of $850 on September 15,1906. The plaintiff also agreed to pay the broker’s commission. This action was brought to recover the amount of such deposit. The court below gave a judgment for the plaintiff for $50. This was error. Under the testimony the plaintiff, if entitled to recover-at all, should have had a judgment for-the sum of $100, possibly less the broker’s commission of $30, which the defendant had concededly paid, or the defendant should have had a judgment in his favor on the merits. There certainly is no foundation for the judgment as given, and it must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

GILDERSLEEVE, J.

On September 1, 1906, the parties to this action entered into a written agreement by which the plaintiff agreed to pay $950 for the purchase price of the contents of a cigar store owned by the defendant. The plaintiff paid the sum of $100, as the agreement stated, “on account,” and agreed to pay the balance of $850 on September 15,1906. The plaintiff also agreed to pay the broker’s commission. This action was brought to recover the amount of such deposit. The court below gave a judgment for the plaintiff for $50. This was error. Under the testimony the plaintiff, if entitled to recover-at all, should have had a judgment for-the sum of $100, possibly less the broker’s commission of $30, which the defendant had concededly paid, or the defendant should have had a judgment in his favor on the merits. There certainly is no foundation for the judgment as given, and it must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 N.Y.S. 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-silverzweig-nyappterm-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack