From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rihan v. Namhoal

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jun 1, 1899
28 Misc. 772 (N.Y. App. Term 1899)

Opinion

June, 1899.

Adolphus D. Pape, for appellant.

Edward A. Sumner, for respondent.


This appeal involves only a question of fact. The plaintiff sued on a written agreement alleged to have been executed by the defendant by affixing her mark thereto, by which she undertook to pay to the plaintiff thirty-three and one-third per cent of an eventual recovery in an action for personal injuries against the Consolidated Traction Company of New Jersey. The answer denied that any agreement was made, or that any services were rendered thereunder and set up as affirmative defense that the signature thereto was forged.

On sharply conflicting evidence the justice decided in favor of the defendant. His determination is supported by ample evidence, and as the exceptions are uniformly frivolous the judgment will be affirmed.

FREEDMAN, P.J., and MacLEAN, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.


Summaries of

Rihan v. Namhoal

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jun 1, 1899
28 Misc. 772 (N.Y. App. Term 1899)
Case details for

Rihan v. Namhoal

Case Details

Full title:AMEEN F. RIHAN, Appellant, v . SADIE NAMHOAL, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Jun 1, 1899

Citations

28 Misc. 772 (N.Y. App. Term 1899)