Fuller v. . Kemp
New York Court of Appeals
The distinction in the rule between a case like this, where the demand is unliquidated, and one where the claim is upon a liquidated demand, pointed out. Appeal from judgment of the G-eneral Term of the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of Hew York, entered upon an order made December 21, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial without a jury.
Read the full summary
The distinction in the rule between a case like this, where the demand is unliquidated, and one where the claim is upon a liquidated demand, pointed out. Appeal from judgment of the G-eneral Term of the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of Hew York, entered upon an order made December 21, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial without a jury. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMaynard, J.
The plaintiff has brought suit do recover a balance claimed to be due for his services as a physician, and the defendant relies solely upon the defense of an accord and satisfaction. The parties have agreed upon a statement of facts embracing the entire issue raised by the pleadings, and we are required to determine whether, upon the facts stipulated, the defendant has, as matter of law, established his defense. The plaintiff’s demand was unliquidated, but he alleged that his services were worth $670, and rendered a bill for that amount without specifying any items. The defendant acknowledged…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Palmerton v. HuxfordNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Bull v. BullSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1876
- McDaniels v. LaphamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849
- Brick v. Plymouth CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Hinkle v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
3Cited by197 opinions
- Nassoiy v. . TomlinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Hudson v. Yonkers Fruit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Eames Vacuum Brake Co. v. . ProsserNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Crossman v. BurrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
192 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.