Paige v. . Faure
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 10, 1918, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as mateerial, are stated in the opinion. A contract calling for the performance of personal services and involving a relation of trust and confidence is not assignable.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 10, 1918, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as mateerial, are stated in the opinion. A contract calling for the performance of personal services and involving a relation of trust and confidence is not assignable. (Hardy Implement Co. v. South Bend Iron Works, 129 Mo. 222; Nassau Hotel Co. v. B. & B. Corp., 162 App. Div. 381; 212 N. Y. 568; Wooster v. Crane & Co., 73 N. J. Eq. 22; Montgomery v.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcLaughlin, J.
On the 12th of December, 1914, the appellant, a dealer in automobile tires bearing his name, entered into a contract with the respondent and one Lindner, the material terms of which, so far as the question presented on the appeal is concerned, are as i follows:
¡ Faure, for a period of one year, gave to Paige and Lindner the exclusive agency in the United States — except the cities of Boston and New York and certain territory adjacent thereto — to sell automobile tires manufactured by and for him and bearing his name. He agreed to sell the tires and make prompt delivery to Paige and Lindner at…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Wood v. . Duff-GordonNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Arkansas Valley Smelting Co. v. Belden Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Boston Ice Co. v. PotterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Wilson v. . Mechanical Orguinette Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Mueller v. Bethesda Mineral Spring Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1891
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Contemporary Mission, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Famous Music Corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
- Stanley Clayman and Melvin Clayman v. Goodman Properties, IncCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1974
- Crane Ice Cream Co. v. Terminal Freezing & Heating Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1925
- Russell v. BooksNew York Supreme Court · 1959
- Mail-Well Envelope Company v. SaleyOregon Supreme Court · 1972
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.