Smyth v. Sichel

49 Misc. 643, 97 N.Y.S. 1008
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided February 15, 1906·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Scott, J.

We consider that section 640d of the Penal Code (Laws of 1901, chap. 128) cannot be invoked as a defense to this action. The contract was fully executed, the defendant reaped the benefit of it, and acknowledged in writing the plaintiffs’ agency (which involved employment) and performance. The defendant must be held to have waived the defense afforded him by the statute. Cody v. Dempsey, 86 App. Div. 336; Sinnott v. German Am. Bank, 164 N. Y. 391. The defense that Sichel and Scully should have been jointly sued, if it had been available, was expressly waived upon the trial by the stipulation of defendant’s counsel that no defense was relied upon except the section of the Penal Code above quoted.

Giegebich, J., concurs.

Gbeehbaum, J., concurs in result.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide event.

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

Smyth v. Sichel, 49 Misc. 643, 97 N.Y.S. 1008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

49 Misc. 643 (Smyth v. Sichel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sirkin v. Fourteenth Street Store
55 Misc. 288 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1907)