Schlesinger v. Burland
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from an order and a judgment of the City Court of the city of Eew York, which sustained a demurrer and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim.
1Opinion of the CourtBisohoee, J.
It is clear from defendants’ brief that counsel have mistaken the plaintiff’s cause of action. It was not to recover commissions alleged to have accrued under the agreement, but for two installments of $250 each, due respectively, February 1, and March 1, 1903, upon an agreement in writing, which, there being nothing to the contrary in the complaint or counterclaim either by way of express allegation or intrinsic reference (Cragin v. Lovell, 88 N. Y. 258), must be deemed to have been continuing and undetermined. Such at least was the theory of the plaintiff’s cause of action, and the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cragin v. . LovellNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- North-Western Mutual Life Insurance v. MooneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Flanagan v. FoxNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
- Douglas v. . CoonleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
3Cited by30 opinions
- In re the Estate of MoranNew York Surrogate's Court · 1930
- Assets Realization Co. v. HowardNew York Supreme Court · 1911
- Assets Realization Co. v. HowardNew York Supreme Court · 1911
- Bardwell v. SzatmaryLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1957
- Selig v. BergmanWashington Supreme Court · 1953
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.