Schank v. . Schuchman
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 21, 1913, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion by plaintiff for judgment in his favor on the pleadings. The following question was -certified: “Does the amended complaint herein state a cause of action against the defendant ? ” The nature of the action and the facts, so far as as material, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 21, 1913, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion by plaintiff for judgment in his favor on the pleadings. The following question was -certified: “Does the amended complaint herein state a cause of action against the defendant ? ” The nature of the action and the facts, so far as as material, are stated in the opinion. The rule of equity that requires restoration has no application where it may be manifested upon the trial that the wrongdoer had…
1Opinion of the CourtCaedozo, J.
The plaintiffs bought of the defendant wagons and parts of wagons, and also employed him to make repairs. Their dealings continued for nearly four years. In that period, the plaintiffs paid for repairs $39,626.66, and for new wagons or fittings $6,027.48, a total of $45,654.14. During all that time, two men, in the plaintiffs’ service, were charged' with the duty of inspecting purchases and repairs, and payment was not made till they had furnished their certificate of approval. It is charged in the complaint that they received from the defendant a bonus or commission of ten per cent, of the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Oscanyan v. Arms Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
- McMullen v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Buzard v. HoustonSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Masson v. BovetCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by103 opinions
- Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Parsa v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- American Surety Co. v. ConnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
98 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.