Sturke v. Eglee

29 Misc. 744, 60 N.Y.S. 1149
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedOctober 15, 1899
StatusPublished

This text of 29 Misc. 744 (Sturke v. Eglee) 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
Sturke v. Eglee, 29 Misc. 744, 60 N.Y.S. 1149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Opinion

Freedman, P. J.

This action was brought against William H. Flagg and the above-named defendant Eglee to recover the sum of $377.75, the admitted value of goods sold and delivered to the defendants while doing business under the style and firm name of W. H. Flagg & Oo. Flagg,was no't served with process and the defendant Eglee alone appears herein.

The complaint alleges that the sale of the goods was induced by the false and fraudulent statements made by Flagg in stating that a copartnership existed between himself and Eglee, when as a matter of fact there was no such partnership. It also contains further allegations of deceit in the making of such statements, reliance thereon by plaintiff and damages sustained thereby.

Without passing upon the sufficiency of the complaint as stating a cause of action for fraud and deceit against this defendant, it is sufficient to say that the testimony fails to sustain the contention of the appellant, and the decision of the trial judge based upon the facts, as stated in his opinion, is fully warranted by the evidence and the judgment must be affirmed.

MaoLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 Misc. 744, 60 N.Y.S. 1149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sturke-v-eglee-nyappterm-1899.