New York Supreme Court, 1886

Marcile v. Salztman

Marcile v. Salztman
New York Supreme Court · Decided December 14, 1886 · Dykman
6 N.Y. St. Rep. 48

Counsel

T. C. Cronin, for resp’t; George B. & A. H. Ely, for . appl’t.

Marcile v. Salztman

Opinion of the Court

Dykman, J.

The complaint sets up an indebtedness of the defendant’s testatrix for goods sold and delivered, and also for a nursery, which was sold by her and which belonged to the plaintiff.

If a recovery is realized under this complaint it will be on a contract implied by law in favor of the plaintiff. The action is founded on contract and not on a tort, and the account involved is of sufficient length to justify the order' of reference.

*49The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.

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