Stern v. Gerber

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Stern v. Gerber

137 N.Y.S. 879

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 8, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 137 N.Y.S. 879 (Stern v. Gerber) 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

Stern v. Gerber, 137 N.Y.S. 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

GUY, J.

This action was brought to recover for services rendered, of the alleged value of $99.77, on account of which plaintiff was paid $6.81 by defendant’s receiver in bankruptcy. The complaint alleges that, prior to his discharge in bankruptcy, defendant agreed in writing to pay plaintiff the entire amount due as soon as he should procure his discharge in bankruptcy. The defense was a general denial; also a release.

During the bankruptcy proceedings, defendant wrote plaintiff letters promising to pay off the balance due “gradually out of my earnings,” “when I resume earning money.” Plaintiff filed his claim, in bankruptcy and received his dividend on account of it. Defendant was thereafter discharged in bankruptcy.

Assuming that conditional promises, pending bankruptcy proceedings, to pay out of future earnings after the discharge, or when the bankrupt is able to pay, are enforceable upon proof that defendant has earned the money, or that he is able to pay, no such proof was furnished. Stern v. Nussbaum, 5 Daly, 382, 383; Lawrence v. Harrington, 122 N. Y. 408, 414, 25 N. E. 406; Kiernan v. Fox, 43 App. Div. 58, 60, 59 N. Y. Supp. 330; Gruenberg v. Treanor, 40 Misc. Rep. 232, 81 N. Y. Supp. 675; German Exchange Bank v. Schnitzer, 72 Misc. Rep. 362, 130 N. Y. Supp. 223.

Proof of parol declarations that defendant was in business, said he was doing the best he could, expected to get another store, and was doing well, is not sufficient proof that he had earned enough to pay, or was able to pay, plaintiff.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

GUY, J.

This action was brought to recover for services rendered, of the alleged value of $99.77, on account of which plaintiff was paid $6.81 by defendant’s receiver in bankruptcy. The complaint alleges that, prior to his discharge in bankruptcy, defendant agreed in writing to pay plaintiff the entire amount due as soon as he should procure his discharge in bankruptcy. The defense was a general denial; also a release.

During the bankruptcy proceedings, defendant wrote plaintiff letters promising to pay off the balance due “gradually out of my earnings,” “when I resume earning money.” Plaintiff filed his claim, in bankruptcy and received his dividend on account of it. Defendant was thereafter discharged in bankruptcy.

Assuming that conditional promises, pending bankruptcy proceedings, to pay out of future earnings after the discharge, or when the bankrupt is able to pay, are enforceable upon proof that defendant has earned the money, or that he is able to pay, no such proof was furnished. Stern v. Nussbaum, 5 Daly, 382, 383; Lawrence v. Harrington, 122 N. Y. 408, 414, 25 N. E. 406; Kiernan v. Fox, 43 App. Div. 58, 60, 59 N. Y. Supp. 330; Gruenberg v. Treanor, 40 Misc. Rep. 232, 81 N. Y. Supp. 675; German Exchange Bank v. Schnitzer, 72 Misc. Rep. 362, 130 N. Y. Supp. 223.

Proof of parol declarations that defendant was in business, said he was doing the best he could, expected to get another store, and was doing well, is not sufficient proof that he had earned enough to pay, or was able to pay, plaintiff.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 N.Y.S. 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stern-v-gerber-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack