Rosenkranz v. Schreiber Brewing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenkranz v. Schreiber Brewing Co.

257 A.D. 1040, 13 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8992

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 28, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 1040 (Rosenkranz v. Schreiber Brewing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosenkranz v. Schreiber Brewing Co., 257 A.D. 1040, 13 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8992 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Memorandum: Upon plaintiff’s own evidence he cannot recover against appellant. He dealt entirely with Rudulph who was not an officer of defendant, and whose authority to make contracts binding on appellant is not shown. (Wilson v. Kings Co. Elevated R. R. Co., 114 N. Y. 487.) Furthermore, plaintiff himself testified that Rudulph did not promise to “ pay ” for plaintiff’s work and materials, but only that the work and materials “ would be paid ” for. And all through his testimony plaintiff, who dealt only with Rudulph, tells of the latter’s saying: “ I will see that you are paid,” and that it was only his “ inference ” that Rudulph meant that appellant would pay. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Rudulph. The evidence to bind appellant was weaker than that against Rudulph. From the entire record it seems clear that, even assuming that Rudulph had authority to bind appellant, the contract made by him was unenforcible under the Statute of Frauds. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 31; Brown v. Weber, 38 N. Y. 187.) All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff against one defendant in an action under a guaranty of payment. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Memorandum: Upon plaintiff’s own evidence he cannot recover against appellant. He dealt entirely with Rudulph who was not an officer of defendant, and whose authority to make contracts binding on appellant is not shown. (Wilson v. Kings Co. Elevated R. R. Co., 114 N. Y. 487.) Furthermore, plaintiff himself testified that Rudulph did not promise to “ pay ” for plaintiff’s work and materials, but only that the work and materials “ would be paid ” for. And all through his testimony plaintiff, who dealt only with Rudulph, tells of the latter’s saying: “ I will see that you are paid,” and that it was only his “ inference ” that Rudulph meant that appellant would pay. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Rudulph. The evidence to bind appellant was weaker than that against Rudulph. From the entire record it seems clear that, even assuming that Rudulph had authority to bind appellant, the contract made by him was unenforcible under the Statute of Frauds. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 31; Brown v. Weber, 38 N. Y. 187.) All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff against one defendant in an action under a guaranty of payment. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1040, 13 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenkranz-v-schreiber-brewing-co-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack