Case ID: nys_72/html/1103-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HASCALL, J. O’DWYER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FRANKEL et al., Respondents, v. BROWN, Appellant.
    (City Court of New York,
    General Term.
    May, 1901.)
    Action by Jacob Frankel and others against Louis Brown.
    Myers, Goldsmith & Bronner (Leonard Bronner, of counsel), for appellant. Henry Kuntz, for respondents.
   HASCALL, J.

While we in the main agree entirely with the appellant’s contention regarding the law, yet we do not find that the facts quite meet the requirements necessary to bring the authorities cited effectually to bear upon the question of this appeal, which is whether or not the papers were insufficient because facts were not shown which made a specific sum due to the plaintiffs, over and' above all counterclaims. We find the case at bar even stronger in fundamental facts than Lawton v. Riel, 34 How. Prac. 465; for here the means were furnished by the papers themselves to compute the exact amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs. Order must be affirmed, with costs and disbursements to respondents. Order affirmed, with costs to respondents.

CONLAN, J., concurs.

O’DWYER, J.

I dissent. The proof failed to show that at the time the attachment was issued the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the sum of $960 as damages «for their wrongful discharge. Order should be reversed, and motion granted, with $10 costs and disbursements.