Case ID: nys_110/html/0858-01.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

MULLER v. IDLER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    May 12, 1908.)
    Sales—Meeting oe Minds—Contract Not Consummated.
    No - contract was made, where the parties provided in writing for a sale of a business for $10,750 and $500 was paid in cash, it being stipulated that $3,000 should be paid on a specific date and that the time for payment of the balance should be agreed upon later, and they never reached such agreement
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District.
    Action by William F. Muller against Frederick Idler. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, RICH, MILDER, and GAY-NOR, JJ.
    James A. Nelson, for appellant.
    Michael F. O’Brien, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court for the plaintiff, in his action to recover $500 paid towards the purchase of certain business, including a lease. On October 24, 1906, the plaintiff and defendant made the following writing :•

“New York, October 24, 1906.
“This will certify that Mr. Muller has paid me by check ($500) five hundred dollars this day on account of my place, known as ‘Idler’s Restaurant,'' formerly ‘Freschman’s,’ next to Luna Park, for the amount of ten thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars. Three thousand ($3,000) to be paid October 27th. Balance to be agreed upon later. This sale includes open goods only used over the bar.”

It seems that the plaintiff paid the $500 called for by the memorandum, but never paid the $3,000. The parties never came to any agreement as to the balance of $7,250. It does appear that they met and negotiated, but their minds never came to a point on the question as to-the payment of the balance. It seems to us, then, that there was not any contract between the plaintiff and defendant. Mayer v. McCreery, 119 N. Y. 435, 23 N. E. 1045.

The point is made that tlj,e writing is a sufficient contract, because it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that he attempted to reach an agreement with the defendant as to the terms of the payment of the balance. But there was no sufficient proof of bad faith, even if such a principle is to be admitted.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.