Case ID: ny_233/html/0551-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samson Friedlander, Appellant, v. Harris Rosenthal et al., Respondents.
    
      Attorney and client — action by attorney to recover money alleged to have been paid by him for and on behalf of defendants.
    
    
      Friedlander v. Rosenthal, 190 App. Div. 938, affirmed.
    (Submitted March 6, 1922;
    decided March 21, 1922.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 31, 1920, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a verdict. The complaint alleged that on and prior to December 5, 1905, plaintiff represented the defendants as attorney in the purchase by the defendants of certain real property in the city of Brooklyn; that at the express instance and request of the defendants, the plaintiff executed certain bonds for the purpose of securing payment to the vendors of the said properties then being acquired by the defendants herein, wherein and whereby the plaintiff obligated himself to pay the amounts mentioned and described in the said bonds, and for which certain mortgages upon the said properties were security; and the said defendants promised and agreed to and with the plaintiff that, in the event that the plaintiff should be compelled to pay out by reason thereof any moneys for their benefit, they would repay to and reimburse the plaintiff for any and all such sum or sums of money as he might be required to pay by reason of the execution of the said bonds at their request; that upon the maturity of the said bonds, actions were brought against the plaintiff in the Supreme Court, Kings county, to recover from him the amounts, and that by reason thereof the plaintiff was compelled to and did pay out in full settlement and discharge of his liability thereunder the sum of $2,700. The answer was a general denial, with the affirmative defense that the agreement alleged was within the Statute of Frauds in that it was not to be performed within one year from the making thereof, and a second defense of the Statute of Limitations.
    
      
      George Edwin Joseph for appellant.
    
      Max D. Steuer for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ;