Case ID: nys_121/html/1131-03.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

FULLERTON, Respondent, v. AUTO CAR EQUIPMENT CO., Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
    February 2, 1910.)
    Action by Henry F. Fullerton against the Auto Car Equipment Company.
   PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

McLennan, P. J., and WILLIAMS, J., dissent, upon the ground that the plaintiff’s assignor was not the procuring cause of the sale of the automobile by the defendant, and that there was no consideration for the alleged promise by the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s assignor without his performing any service whatever.