From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Feb 27, 1939
27 F. Supp. 1020 (S.D.N.Y. 1939)

Opinion

February 27, 1939.

Lewis F. Glaser, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Charles Pratt Healy, of New York City, for defendants.


The complaint in this action alleges an agreement under which the plaintiff was to receive commissions on renewal sales. I think this is sufficient against a motion to dismiss. Whether the Statute of Frauds has any application is at least doubtful, see Warren Chemical Mfg. Co. v. Holbrook, 118 N.Y. 586, 23 N.E. 908, 16 Am.St.Rep. 788; but in any event the question should be presented by affirmative defense under Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

The motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint is denied.


Summaries of

Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Feb 27, 1939
27 F. Supp. 1020 (S.D.N.Y. 1939)
Case details for

Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co.

Case Details

Full title:PIEST v. TIDE WATER OIL CO. et al

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Feb 27, 1939

Citations

27 F. Supp. 1020 (S.D.N.Y. 1939)

Citing Cases

Woods v. Parsons

Besides, by Rule 8(c), the statute of frauds is expressly included among the affirmative defenses which ‘ in…

Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co.

Whether the Statute of Frauds has any application is at least doubtful; See Warren Chemical Mfg. Co. v.…