Case ID: nys_67/html/0592-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURDAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

QUERY v. COONEY et al.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    December 13, 1900.)
    1. Contract—Compensation—Recovery.
    Where plaintiff contracted with defendants to do certain work for them, she to look to them for payment, the fact that defendants agree between themselves that her compensation shall come from a certain fund is not binding on her. and hence her right to recover the same from them personally remains unimpaired.
    3. Evidence—Judgment—Conclusiveness.
    Where there is no evidence that plaintiff was a party to a certain stipulation, and the court submits such question to the jury as a question of fact, a finding that plaintiff was not a party thereto is conclusive on defendants.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Christine Herber Query against John J. Cooney and others. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before MCCARTHY and O’DWYER, JJ.
    B. Gerson Oppenheim, for appellants.
    Davina Dally, for respondent.
   PER CURDAM.

The court submitted to the jury the question of who had employed the plaintiff, and to whom she looked for payment. The jury have found that the defendants employed her, and that she looked to them for payment. The first stipulation was a contract between the parties and the plaintiff, under which the parties became liable to the plaintiff for her compensation, and she had a right to look to them personally for the payment of her claim. The second stipulation fixed the price per folio which she was to receive for her work, and at the same time, as between the parties to the proceedings (not plaintiff), named a fund from which plaintiff’s compensation was to come. This was a matter which the parties to the proceeding undertook to arrange between themselves, and in so doing they did not in any way bind the plaintiff. Her right to recover her compensation from them personally remains unimpaired. There is no evidence that she was a party to the second stipulation, or bound by it, and the court, in its charge, submitted the question as a question of fact to the jury, and their verdict upon that subject is conclusive upon the defendants.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs.