Work v. Beach
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, New York county. Action by Frank Work, William E. Strong, George Wood, and Frank K. Sturgis againstMiles Beach. Defendant and one Marston had a joint account with plaintiffs, who were stock-brokers, arising out of purchases of stocks for them by plaintiffs, and defendant had also an individual account with plaintiffs of the same nature.
Read the full summary
Appeal from special term, New York county. Action by Frank Work, William E. Strong, George Wood, and Frank K. Sturgis againstMiles Beach. Defendant and one Marston had a joint account with plaintiffs, who were stock-brokers, arising out of purchases of stocks for them by plaintiffs, and defendant had also an individual account with plaintiffs of the same nature. Plaintiffs brought an action against defendant and Marston on such joint account, alleging that they had advanced more money thereon than the value of the securities held by them. Defendant and Marston appeared in the action, and…
1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.
The appellants claim that it was error upon the part of the trial judge to assume that the promise made by the defendant is the cause of action, and insist that the pleadings and the proof, show it to be an action upon an account stated and settled. This precise question was presented upon a former appeal in this case, (6 N. Y. Supp. 27,) and it was held by this court, upon an examination then of the complaint, as it now more clearly is made to appear by the proof offered upon the trial to sustain the allegations of the amended complaint, “that the original debt was discharged and a new…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Work v. BeachNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Work v. BeachNew York Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by4 opinions
- Benton v. BentonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1908
- O'NEIL v. Estate of MurthaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997
- Harding v. TaubelCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1924
- Brooklyn Radio Service Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934