Legal Opinion

Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided February 27, 1939PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COXE, District Judge.

The complaint in this action alleges an agreement under which the plaintiff was to receive commissions on renewal sales. I think this is sufficient against a motion to dismiss. Whether the Statute of Frauds has any application is at least doubtful, see Warren Chemical & Mfg. Co. v. Holbrook, 118 N.Y. 586, 23 N.E. 908, 16 Am-St.Rep. 788; but in any event the question should be presented by affirmative defense under Rule 8 (c), 28 U. S.C.A. following section 723c.

The motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint is denied.

2Cases cited1 opinion

Warren Chemical & Manufacturing Co. v. HolbrookNew York Court of Appeals · 1890

3Cited by8 opinions

Continental Collieries, Inc. v. ShoberCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
Kahn v. Cecelia Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1941
Fletcher v. WilliamsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1963
Miller v. HoffmanDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1940
Edwards v. Wyckoff Electrical Supply Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.