Stone v. Stolts

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Stone v. Stolts

112 N.Y.S. 1045

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 24, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 N.Y.S. 1045 (Stone v. Stolts) 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

Stone v. Stolts, 112 N.Y.S. 1045 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

The pleadings in this action were written and the complaint alleged a cause of action for services performed by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. Upon the trial no proof was offered of the services alleged to have been performed by the plaintiff for the defendant, and the plaintiff was permitted, over the objection and exception of the defendant, to offer in evidence a written agreement made by the defendant guaranteeing to pay the plaintiff for certain work performed. No motion was made to amend the pleadings. It is elementary that, in order to sustain a judgment, it is necessary that the proof should support the allegations of the complaint. In the present case the judgment is without support from the evidence, and must be reversed. Northam v. Dutchess Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 117 N. Y. 73, 69 N. E. 222. Even if this objection be disregarded, there would still be no legal ground upon which this judgment could be sustained. The written agreement, guaranteeing the payment for the work performed by the plaintiff, neither expressly nor by fair implication disclosed the consideration upon which it was made. The agreement was therefore void under the statute of frauds. Drake v. Seaman, 97 N. Y. 230; Barney v. Forbes, 118 N. Y. 580, 23 N. E. 890.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and a new trial ordered; 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

SEABURY, J.

The pleadings in this action were written and the complaint alleged a cause of action for services performed by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. Upon the trial no proof was offered of the services alleged to have been performed by the plaintiff for the defendant, and the plaintiff was permitted, over the objection and exception of the defendant, to offer in evidence a written agreement made by the defendant guaranteeing to pay the plaintiff for certain work performed. No motion was made to amend the pleadings. It is elementary that, in order to sustain a judgment, it is necessary that the proof should support the allegations of the complaint. In the present case the judgment is without support from the evidence, and must be reversed. Northam v. Dutchess Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 117 N. Y. 73, 69 N. E. 222. Even if this objection be disregarded, there would still be no legal ground upon which this judgment could be sustained. The written agreement, guaranteeing the payment for the work performed by the plaintiff, neither expressly nor by fair implication disclosed the consideration upon which it was made. The agreement was therefore void under the statute of frauds. Drake v. Seaman, 97 N. Y. 230; Barney v. Forbes, 118 N. Y. 580, 23 N. E. 890.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and a new trial ordered; with costs to the appellant to abide the event." All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 N.Y.S. 1045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-stolts-nyappterm-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack