Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1907

Pierce v. McLaughlin Real Estate Co.

Pierce v. McLaughlin Real Estate Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 4, 1907 · Gaynor
121 A.D. 501; 106 N.Y.S. 28; 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1815

Counsel

James P. Judge [Martin W. Littleton with him on the brief], for the appellant., Albert A. Hovell, for the respondent.

Pierce v. McLaughlin Real Estate Co.

Opinion of the Court

Gaynor, J.:

The plaintiff does not state in his- affidavit what kihd of-an- action he has. brought by the service of the summons. It may be gathered from such-affidavit that it is' a suit for an accounting. It states that the plaintiff had an oral agreement with the defendant to-got purchasers of real estate owned or controlled' by it, the'■'plaintiff to be paid a percentage of the net profit -the"defendant should realize on the real estate thus sold, and that many sales were made -by- the plaintiff. Ho examination is necessary -to frame a complaint for an accounting. If the defendant be under the duty to account to the plaintiff, and refuses to do so, as 'the- plaintiff’s affidavit' alleges, then all that the plaintiff needs to' do is to frame a bare and lean •complaint showing that he is entitled to an accounting. Then the course is to obtain' an interlocutory judgment that the defendant file an account. The practice following- that is equally familiar to the profession. The plaintiff wants to get the. account before he serves a complaint. '

The order should be reversed.

Hirsohberg, P. J., Hooker, Rich and Miller,. JJ., concurred.

■ Order reversed,, with tep dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with costs. ' . ' ■ '

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.