Case ID: nys_101/html/0252-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FRIEDLANDER v. LEHMAN.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    November 14, 1906.)
    Money Paid—Work and Labor—Request.
    Where plaintiffs paid out money and performed services for defendant... in the absence of proof of request or reasonable occasion therefor, defendant is not liable.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent Dig. vol. 35, Money Paid, §§;■ 1-16; vol. 50, Work and Labor, §§ 1-10.]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Twelftht District.
    Action by William Friedlander against Max Lehman. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
    Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, DUGRO, and DOWLING, JJ„.
    Bernard G. Heyn, for appellant.
    Lippmann & Ruck, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Evidence that plaintiff paid out money for defendant, and between certain dates rendered services to defendant, which' plaintiff considers worth a certain sum of money, does not warrant a conclusion that defendant is under any liability. No request or-reasonable occasion for paying the money or rendering the service-being shown, no liability to the plaintiff exists. The affidavit upon-which the warrant was issued shows no facts from which it can be in- • ferred that any money is due plaintiff, no request or reasonable occasion to lay out the money or render the service specified being shown..

The judgment will be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costL to appellant to abide the event.