Zeeman v. Rosenthal
32 Misc. 777, 66 N.Y.S. 1151
This text of 32 Misc. 777 (Zeeman v. Rosenthal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Zeeman v. Rosenthal, 32 Misc. 777, 66 N.Y.S. 1151 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1900).
Opinion
The promise of defendant was not a promise to answer for the debt or default of another. It was an original promise. It was not necessary that it should have been in writing.
We think that no error was committed, and the judgment must he affirmed, with costs.
Present: Fitzsimons, Ch. J., Conlan and Hascall, JJ.
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)
32 Misc. 777, 66 N.Y.S. 1151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeeman-v-rosenthal-nynyccityct-1900.