Seidler v. Schreck

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Seidler v. Schreck

30 Misc. 783, 62 N.Y.S. 780

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Misc. 783 (Seidler v. Schreck) 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

Seidler v. Schreck, 30 Misc. 783, 62 N.Y.S. 780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The record in this case is very unsatisfactory, but summing up the proofs taken in connection with the pleadings, which are in writing, the result seems to be that neither party recognized the writing, which was put in evidence, as embodying a genuine and enforceable agreement between them. Rejecting this, there was evidence before the court that the plaintiff rendered to the defendant the service for which he sues, and that the defendant agreed to pay him therefor the amount which he has recovered in this action. The defense that has been interposed, charging the plaintiff with fraud in the matter, does not seem to be sustained by the proofs; at all events, it presented a simple question of fact, which has been determined by the court below adversely to the defendant.

We see no sufficient reason for reversing the judgment.

Present: Beekman, P. J.; Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The record in this case is very unsatisfactory, but summing up the proofs taken in connection with the pleadings, which are in writing, the result seems to be that neither party recognized the writing, which was put in evidence, as embodying a genuine and enforceable agreement between them. Rejecting this, there was evidence before the court that the plaintiff rendered to the defendant the service for which he sues, and that the defendant agreed to pay him therefor the amount which he has recovered in this action. The defense that has been interposed, charging the plaintiff with fraud in the matter, does not seem to be sustained by the proofs; at all events, it presented a simple question of fact, which has been determined by the court below adversely to the defendant.

We see no sufficient reason for reversing the judgment.

Present: Beekman, P. J.; Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Misc. 783, 62 N.Y.S. 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seidler-v-schreck-nyappterm-1900.