Reports of Cases Decided in the Court of Appeals of the State of New York Volume 101 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1886 Excerpt: ...his business under the agreement; that the business of the defendant from the 1st day of May, 1872, until the 1st day of August, 1873, was very successful and profitable, and that he made and received as profits of the business during that time, after deducting the interest on the capital invested, the sum of $21,000, and that for one-half of that amount, less a credit mentioned, the defendant was indebted to plaintiff under their agreement; and he demanded judgment for $7,862.20 with interest, besides costs. To this complaint the defendant interposed an answer in which-he denied the allegations of the complaint, and alleged in bar of the action the judgment recovered by him in the former action. The cause was referred to a referee, and after hearing the evidence he found the agreement between the parties to be substantially as alleged in the complaint, and he Opinion of the Court, per Earl, J. took the account between them and found there was due the plaintiff under the agreement upwards of $7,000, for which he ordered judgment. In reference to the former action and the recovery therein, he found as matter of fact that that action was brought in respect to the same work and for an accounting and recovery in respect to the same profits for which tliis action was brought, but he found as matter of law that that action was not a bar to this. We think the referee correctly held that the former action was not a bar to this. The causes of action in the two suits were not the same. The cause of action in the first suit sprang out of the alleged relations between the plaintiff and defendant as copartners, and was based upon the right which the plaintiff derived from that relation to an accounting and his share of the profits. Here the cause of action is based enti...

R1,021

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles10210
Mobicred@R96pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1886 Excerpt: ...his business under the agreement; that the business of the defendant from the 1st day of May, 1872, until the 1st day of August, 1873, was very successful and profitable, and that he made and received as profits of the business during that time, after deducting the interest on the capital invested, the sum of $21,000, and that for one-half of that amount, less a credit mentioned, the defendant was indebted to plaintiff under their agreement; and he demanded judgment for $7,862.20 with interest, besides costs. To this complaint the defendant interposed an answer in which-he denied the allegations of the complaint, and alleged in bar of the action the judgment recovered by him in the former action. The cause was referred to a referee, and after hearing the evidence he found the agreement between the parties to be substantially as alleged in the complaint, and he Opinion of the Court, per Earl, J. took the account between them and found there was due the plaintiff under the agreement upwards of $7,000, for which he ordered judgment. In reference to the former action and the recovery therein, he found as matter of fact that that action was brought in respect to the same work and for an accounting and recovery in respect to the same profits for which tliis action was brought, but he found as matter of law that that action was not a bar to this. We think the referee correctly held that the former action was not a bar to this. The causes of action in the two suits were not the same. The cause of action in the first suit sprang out of the alleged relations between the plaintiff and defendant as copartners, and was based upon the right which the plaintiff derived from that relation to an accounting and his share of the profits. Here the cause of action is based enti...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

May 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

May 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 16mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

304

ISBN-13

978-1-232-13349-0

Barcode

9781232133490

Categories

LSN

1-232-13349-3



Trending On Loot