New York Supreme Court, 1866

Thurman v. Fiske.

Thurman v. Fiske.
New York Supreme Court · Decided March 15, 1866
30 How. Pr. 397

Counsel

J. A. Millard, for plaintiff., Irving Browne, for defendant, argued,

Thurman v. Fiske.

Opinion of the Court

1st. That the necessity for a written agreement was waived by the consent and agreement of the parties in open court, citing Keator agt. Ulster and Delaware Plank Road Company (7 How. Pr. Rep. 41).

2d.- That the provision of section 313 of the Code is merely directory, citing Foster agt. Bryan (26. How. Pr. Rep. 164).

*3983d. That the plaintiff was estopped by the agreement and the defendant’s payment, without objection or notice of recall by the plaintiff, citing Dezell agt. Odell (3 Hill, 215).

All the judges concurring, order affirmed on first and third grounds above, with costs.

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