Legal Opinion
Becker v. Wells
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 19, 1948PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam-.
According to the agreement, as alleged in the complaint, the transaction involved the holding of moneys delivered to defendant by plaintiffs as their agent subject to designated conditions and the disbursement of such moneys in accordance with explicit directions. It is for defendant’s violation of that agreement and for his disobedience of their instructions that plaintiffs seek damages. (See Heinemann v. Heard, 50 N. Y. 27, 35; Gravenhorst v. Turner, 215 App. Div. 617.) Defendant’s promise — being collateral to and independent of any agreement involving the sale or transfer of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Sleeth v. . SampsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- In Re the Estate of WestbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Heinemann v. . HeardNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Rosenberg v. General Realty Service, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Reeve v. CromwellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Flyer v. SullivanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
- Fire Ass'n v. General Handkerchief Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1952
- Johnson v. RagsdaleCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2004
- Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. v. Ross Systems, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Morris v. PhillipsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999