Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co.
27 F. Supp. 1020, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2793
Opinion
The complaint in this action alleges an agreement under which the plaintiff was to receive commissions on renewal sales. I think this is sufficient against a motion to dismiss. Whether the Statute of Frauds has any application is at least doubtful, see Warren Chemical & Mfg. Co. v. Holbrook, 118 N.Y. 586, 23 N.E. 908, 16 Am-St.Rep. 788; but in any event the question should be presented by affirmative defense under Rule 8 (c), 28 U. S.C.A. following section 723c.
The motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co., 27 F. Supp. 1020, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2793 (S.D.N.Y. 1939).
27 F. Supp. 1020 (Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cicero v. Intellor Group, Inc.
W.D. New York, 2021
Fletcher v. Williams
153 So. 2d 759 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Edwards v. Wyckoff Electrical Supply Co.
126 A.2d 29 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1956)
Woods v. Parsons
7 F.R.D. 528 (D. Nebraska, 1947)
Continental Collieries, Inc. v. Shober
130 F.2d 631 (Third Circuit, 1942)
Kahn v. Cecelia Co.
40 F. Supp. 878 (S.D. New York, 1941)
Miller v. Hoffman
1 F.R.D. 290 (D. New Jersey, 1940)
Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co.
27 F. Supp. 1021 (S.D. New York, 1939)