Legal Opinion

Monhof v. Happy

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided June 28, 1932PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff sues for work, labor and services, but on her own showing her claim for same would be barred by the Statute of Limitations. She claims, however, a payment on account to avert the effect of the statute. Defendant shows that at the time the payment was made the following agreement was entered into:

*209“ Dec. 14/29
“ William G. Happy
“ 43 Leonard Street
“ New York.
“ Miss Ida Monhof.
“ I.O.U. Six hundred and eighty dollars in full settlement of any and all claims which you may have against me to date. Same to be paid by me at my convenience. ; WM. G. HAPPY. “ O.K
“ Ida Monhof.”

Whether or not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Tebo v. . RobinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
  2. Blair v. LynchNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
  3. Work v. BeachNew York Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Siepka v. BogulskiNew York Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Mayer v. MiddlemissAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1946

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API