Thurman v. Fiske.

New York Supreme Court

Thurman v. Fiske.

30 How. Pr. 397

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1866

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 30 How. Pr. 397 (Thurman v. Fiske.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thurman v. Fiske., 30 How. Pr. 397 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1866).

Pincite

Opinion

1st. That the necessity for a written agreement was waived by the consent and agreement of the parties in open court, citing Keator agt. Ulster and Delaware Plank Road Company (7 How. Pr. Rep. 41).

2d.- That the provision of section 313 of the Code is merely directory, citing Foster agt. Bryan (26. How. Pr. Rep. 164).

[398]*3983d. That the plaintiff was estopped by the agreement and the defendant’s payment, without objection or notice of recall by the plaintiff, citing Dezell agt. Odell (3 Hill, 215).

All the judges concurring, order affirmed on first and third grounds above, with costs.

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

1st. That the necessity for a written agreement was waived by the consent and agreement of the parties in open court, citing Keator agt. Ulster and Delaware Plank Road Company (7 How. Pr. Rep. 41).

2d.- That the provision of section 313 of the Code is merely directory, citing Foster agt. Bryan (26. How. Pr. Rep. 164).

[398]*3983d. That the plaintiff was estopped by the agreement and the defendant’s payment, without objection or notice of recall by the plaintiff, citing Dezell agt. Odell (3 Hill, 215).

All the judges concurring, order affirmed on first and third grounds above, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 How. Pr. 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thurman-v-fiske-nysupct-1866.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack