Blumenstiel v. Fleitmann — 69 N.Y.S. 665

Majority

p. 665

BLUMENSTIEL et al. v. FLEITMANN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 4, 1901.)

Headnote

Injunction—When Granted.

Plaintiff was entitled by contract to a certain share of amounts collected from the government, whether remitted direct by agents of defendant to him or otherwise. Held, that he was not entitled to enjoin the agents from making remittances of whatever sums they have collected or may collect from the government.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Alexander Blumenstiel and others against Ewald Pleitmann and others, impleaded with others. Prom an order denying a motion to continue an injunction pendente lite, plaintiffs, appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and RUMSEY, McLAUGHLIN, and PATTERSON, JJ.

Emanuel Blumenstiel, for appellants.

Edwin B. Smith, for respondents.

We think this motion was properly denied. Under the agreement between the plaintiffs and Heer & Co., the plaintiffs were entitled to “50$ of all amounts hereafter collected, whether remittance is made direct by Pleitmann & Co. and Dreyfus, Kohn & Co., or the United States government, to Heer & Co., or through Blumenstiel & Hirsch.” This contemplated that Heer & Co. were not to become liable to the plaintiffs until after the amount which had been collected from the United States government had actually been remitted to and received by Heer & Co. This being so, manifestly the plaintiffs have no right to prevent Pleitmann & Co., as the agents and representatives of Heer & Co., from remitting to that firm whatever sums they have collected or may collect from the United States government.

The order appealed from is right, and must be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.