Rihan v. Namhoal

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rihan v. Namhoal

28 Misc. 772, 59 N.Y.S. 1114

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Misc. 772 (Rihan v. Namhoal) 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

Rihan v. Namhoal, 28 Misc. 772, 59 N.Y.S. 1114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Leventritt, J.

This appeal involves only a question of fact. The plaintiff sued on a written agreement alleged to have been executed by the defendant by affixing her mark thereto, by which she undertook to pay to the plaintiff thirty-three and one-third per cent of an eventual recovery in an action for personal injuries against the Consolidated Traction Company of New Jersey. The answer denied that any agreement was made, or that any services were rendered thereunder and set up as affirmative defense that the signature thereto was forged.

[773]*773On sharply conflicting evidence the justice decided in favor of the defendant. His determination is supported by ample evidence, and as the exceptions are uniformly frivolous the judgment mil be affirmed.

Freedman, P. J., and MacLean, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.

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

Leventritt, J.

This appeal involves only a question of fact. The plaintiff sued on a written agreement alleged to have been executed by the defendant by affixing her mark thereto, by which she undertook to pay to the plaintiff thirty-three and one-third per cent of an eventual recovery in an action for personal injuries against the Consolidated Traction Company of New Jersey. The answer denied that any agreement was made, or that any services were rendered thereunder and set up as affirmative defense that the signature thereto was forged.

[773]*773On sharply conflicting evidence the justice decided in favor of the defendant. His determination is supported by ample evidence, and as the exceptions are uniformly frivolous the judgment mil be affirmed.

Freedman, P. J., and MacLean, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Misc. 772, 59 N.Y.S. 1114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rihan-v-namhoal-nyappterm-1899.