Wolf v. Herrman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolf v. Herrman

88 N.Y.S. 1120

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 5, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 1120 (Wolf v. Herrman) 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

Wolf v. Herrman, 88 N.Y.S. 1120 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Had the defense of the statute of frauds been pleaded or raised at the trial, the plaintiff’s recovery would have been limited to $50; and, in view of the tender of that amount before suit brought and its subsequent payment into court, the judgment should have gone for the defendant. In the absence of such a plea, the justice was warranted in awarding $75 to the plaintiff; but the judgment in his favor should have been in the sum of $25, as the $50 on deposit awaited his order. Judgment modified, by reducing it to $25 and costs, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Had the defense of the statute of frauds been pleaded or raised at the trial, the plaintiff’s recovery would have been limited to $50; and, in view of the tender of that amount before suit brought and its subsequent payment into court, the judgment should have gone for the defendant. In the absence of such a plea, the justice was warranted in awarding $75 to the plaintiff; but the judgment in his favor should have been in the sum of $25, as the $50 on deposit awaited his order. Judgment modified, by reducing it to $25 and costs, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.Y.S. 1120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-herrman-nyappterm-1904.