Smithson v. Robinson

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Smithson v. Robinson

120 N.Y.S. 741

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 21, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 120 N.Y.S. 741 (Smithson v. Robinson) 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

Smithson v. Robinson, 120 N.Y.S. 741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The complaint in substance alleges that for services rendered and to be rendered and performed defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $1,000 if a certain play proved a success; that for certain additional services rendered and expenses incurred plaintiff is entitled to $116; that the play was successful. Defendant in substance generally denies the complaint.

The issues presented are simple. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Defendant is fully apprised of the nature of plaintiff’s claim-. If he shows, as he states, that he does not even know the plaintiff, he must succeed in the action. Under the authorities, however, defendant may be entitled to a statement from plaintiff as to whether the employment was oral or in writing, and the time and place of the agreements on which he sues.

As so modified, the order should be affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.

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

PER CURIAM.

The complaint in substance alleges that for services rendered and to be rendered and performed defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $1,000 if a certain play proved a success; that for certain additional services rendered and expenses incurred plaintiff is entitled to $116; that the play was successful. Defendant in substance generally denies the complaint.

The issues presented are simple. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Defendant is fully apprised of the nature of plaintiff’s claim-. If he shows, as he states, that he does not even know the plaintiff, he must succeed in the action. Under the authorities, however, defendant may be entitled to a statement from plaintiff as to whether the employment was oral or in writing, and the time and place of the agreements on which he sues.

As so modified, the order should be affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 N.Y.S. 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smithson-v-robinson-nyappterm-1910.