Pierce v. Apple

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Pierce v. Apple

92 N.Y.S. 1142

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided February 23, 1905·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

McCALL, J.

Irrespective of the question that the contract sought to be enforced by the defendant was not a contract made by the then owner of the premises, but was one executed by a person purporting to be the agent of a firm that never had any title to the premises, this judgment should be reversed, because, even if it had been made by the owner, it was a mere collateral personal undertaking, which did not bind the plaintiff in this action. Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment directed for the plaintiff, with costs.

SCOTT, J., concurs.

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

McCALL, J.

Irrespective of the question that the contract sought to be enforced by the defendant was not a contract made by the then owner of the premises, but was one executed by a person purporting to be the agent of a firm that never had any title to the premises, this judgment should be reversed, because, even if it had been made by the owner, it was a mere collateral personal undertaking, which did not bind the plaintiff in this action. Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment directed for the plaintiff, with costs.

SCOTT, J., concurs.

Pierce v. Apple, 92 N.Y.S. 1142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

92 N.Y.S. 1142 (Pierce v. Apple) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related