Schlesinger v. Thalmessinger

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Schlesinger v. Thalmessinger

93 N.Y.S. 381

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 24, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 93 N.Y.S. 381 (Schlesinger v. Thalmessinger) 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

Schlesinger v. Thalmessinger, 93 N.Y.S. 381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The practice below was erroneous. The defendant having served a bill before the argument, and that bill being retained by the plaintiff, and concededly containing a compliance with the demand in most particulars, the proper practice was to move for a further bill, or to enter an order requiring merely a further bill. In addition to the items furnished, the defendant should have given, so far as may be, the names and addresses of those who it is claimed opened accounts with the Federal Bank, and to further itemize the value of the services; separating commission items from , those claimed as the basis of a quantum meruit, and grouping the latter under general heads. The last paragraph of the order should be stricken out. The question of exclusion of testimony was not before the court.

Order modified as indicated in the opinion, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The practice below was erroneous. The defendant having served a bill before the argument, and that bill being retained by the plaintiff, and concededly containing a compliance with the demand in most particulars, the proper practice was to move for a further bill, or to enter an order requiring merely a further bill. In addition to the items furnished, the defendant should have given, so far as may be, the names and addresses of those who it is claimed opened accounts with the Federal Bank, and to further itemize the value of the services; separating commission items from , those claimed as the basis of a quantum meruit, and grouping the latter under general heads. The last paragraph of the order should be stricken out. The question of exclusion of testimony was not before the court.

Order modified as indicated in the opinion, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 N.Y.S. 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlesinger-v-thalmessinger-nyappterm-1905.