TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Konwiser v. Retail Tobacconist Printing & Publishing Co.

Konwiser v. Retail Tobacconist Printing & Publ'g Co., 157 N.Y.S. 829 (1916)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 13, 1916
Judges
Lehman
Citations
157 N.Y.S. 829
Headnotes
Evidence For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Summary
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District. Action by Harry V. Konwiser against the Retail Tobacconist Printing & Publishing Company. From a judgment for the defendant, dismissing the complaint on the merits and assessing costs against plaintiff, the plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Lehman

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

LEHMAN, J.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant under a written contract whereby the defendant agreed to pay him a commission on all business done by it. The plaintiff testified at the trial, from a list taken from the books of the defendant company, that *830 he was entitled to commissions of $2,305.08, that he had received the sum of $1,930, and that there is now due him the difference, viz., $375.08. He is, however, for some reason only claiming $104.46. The defendant then testified that he had compared the plaintiff’s list with the books, that there were 29 mistakes in the list, and that the plaintiff had overdrawn his account by $34. The trial justice thereupon awarded judgment to the defendant upon the merits.

It seems to me that in the interest of justice we are bound to reverse the judgment. The plaintiff presented testimony which was based upon a list containing exactly the items of business done by the defendant. According to that testimony he is entitled to judgment for a greater amount than he demands. If there are mistakes in that list, the defendant should be required to point them out in detail, so that the court can find that these mistakes not only exist, but are of such magnitude as to wipe out the balance claimed. In the present case the judgment rests, not upon any conclusion of the trial justice based upon legal evidence, but rests only upon the bare conclusion of the defendant himself.

Judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1930: 119302026peak 1930 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Estate of Auditore136 Misc. 664 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1930)

Most recent

  1. In re the Estate of Auditore136 Misc. 664 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1930)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list