From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lebolt Company v. Maloney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 4, 1934
241 App. Div. 98 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)

Opinion

May 4, 1934.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County.

Philip J. Nathan of counsel [ Norman Berman with him on the brief; Marx Kahn, attorneys], for the appellant.

William M. Butler, for the respondent.

Present — FINCH, P.J., MERRELL, MARTIN, O'MALLEY and UNTERMYER, JJ.


The agreement alleged in the complaint is not within the Statute of Frauds because it involved the substitution of the liability of the defendant for the liability of his son. This constituted an original undertaking by the defendant. ( Meriden Britannia Co. v. Zingsen, 48 N.Y. 247; Mallory v. Gillett, 21 id. 412.)

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted.


Order reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.


Summaries of

Lebolt Company v. Maloney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 4, 1934
241 App. Div. 98 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)
Case details for

Lebolt Company v. Maloney

Case Details

Full title:LEBOLT COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. PETER J. MALONEY, SR., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 4, 1934

Citations

241 App. Div. 98 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)
271 N.Y.S. 428

Citing Cases

Healy v. Brotman

The facts of the case do not appear to be disputed. The Statute of Frauds applies to a promise which is…