Hyperlawhypertext legal database Pierce v. Apple 92 N.Y.S. 1142

← Cases

Pierce v. Apple

92 N.Y.S. 1142 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1905-02-23 English

Decision Majority — McCALL, J. · Concurring — GIEGERICH, J.

Contents
p. 1142
PIERCE, Appellant, v. APPLE, Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
February 23, 1905.)

Headnote

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District. Action by Louis Pierce against Sol H. Apple. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed. I. Cohn, for appellant. Mc-Burney & McBurney, for respondent.

Irrespective of the question that the contract sought to be enforced by the defendant was not a contract made by the then owner of the premises, but was one executed by a person purporting to be the agent of a firm that never had any title to the premises, this judgment should be reversed, because, even if it had been made by the owner, it was a mere collateral personal undertaking, which did not bind the plaintiff in this action. Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment directed for the plaintiff, with costs.

SCOTT, J., concurs.

(concurring). I concur upon the additional ground that it appears from the conceded facts that the plaintiff purchased without notice. Henck v. Barnes, 84 Hun, 546 , 550, 32 N. Y. Supp. 840 .