Hoeninghaus v. Chaleyer
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, Hew York county. Action byHoeninghaus & Curtiss against Chaleyer & Monnier for a breach of a contract by the defendants to procure consignments for plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from special term, Hew York county. Action byHoeninghaus & Curtiss against Chaleyer & Monnier for a breach of a contract by the defendants to procure consignments for plaintiffs. The complaint alleged, among other things: “That on or about May 30, 1884, the plaintiffs and defendants duly entered into an agreement, wherein and whereby it was, among other things, duly agreed, in consideration of the mutual covenants therein contained, that the plaintiffs were to procure consignments of goods to the defendants, and should receive a certain commission upon all such consignments; that…
1Opinion of the CourtBartlett, J.
There are three reasons why this order should be reversed: First. It appears that the defendants are fully able to answer without further particulars of the plaintiff’s claim than they already possess; secondly, they do not themselves deny that they have knowledge of the matters as to which they demand particulars; and, thirdly, their attorney’s affidavit as to such want of knowledge on the part of his clients is insufficient.
The action is brought to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract whereby the defendants, who were merchants in France, agreed “to do all that they could…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rice v. RockefellerNew York Supreme Court · 1888
- Rice v. RockefellerNew York Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by3 opinions
- Van Olinda v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1894
- Cohn v. BaldwinNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Blake v. HarriganNew York Supreme Court · 1890