Case ID: misc_24/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Schuchman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Brian et al., Respondents, v. Thomas Williams, Appellant.
    (City Court of New York, General Term,
    August, 1898.)
    Deference — Many items, forming the consideration of notes sued upon, do not make the action referrable.
    The fact that the items, which make up the consideration of promissory notes, are numerous, does not make an action upon the notes one upon an account and referable in a compulsory manner.
    Appeal by the defendant from an order for a compulsory reference.
    Earley & Prendergast, for appellant..
    Thomas C. O’Sullivan, for respondents.
   Schuchman, J.

The complaint sets up" a. cause of. action on contract (promissory notes). The' answer pleads failure of con-in that plaintiffs never furnished the various kinds of articles and materials by them agreed to be furnished, and for which said note was given.

The fact that the items of the various articles which make up the consideration of the notes are numerous, does' not make the action one on an account. Allentown Mills v. Dwyer, 26 App. Div. 101.

The issues raised entitled defendant to a jury trial.

"Order reversed, with costs, and motion denied, with costs to the defendant-appellant.

Olcott, J., concurs.

Order reversed, with costs, and motion denied, with costs.