Legal Opinion
Stulsaft v. Mercer Tube & Manufacturing Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 4, 1942PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Lehman, Ch. J.
The plaintiff’s employment as selling agent of the defendant has been terminated. He has brought an action to recover damages resulting from his discharge. In his complaint the plaintiff alleges: “ That the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff for his services, an amount equal to two and one-half per centum (2J%) of the gross sales in the territories allotted to the plaintiff, payable monthly, and the plaintiff agreed with the defendant so to work for said time and for said compensation.”
The defendant pleaded as a defense the Statute of Frauds. In response to the defendant’s…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Marks v. . CowdinNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Webster v. CondonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
3Cited by29 opinions
- Intercontinental Planning, Ltd. v. Daystrom Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1969
- Olympic Junior, Inc., in No. 71-1440 v. David Crystal, Inc. Appeal of Edward Defabio, in No. 71-1441. Appeal of Paul D'alessandro, in No. 71-1442Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
- Mazzei v. Money StoreCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016
- Martocci v. Greater New York Brewery, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1950
- Grombach Productions, Inc. v. WaringNew York Court of Appeals · 1944
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.