Case Name: Emma Simpson, Respondent, v. Twenty-eighth Street Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-11
Citations: 92 Misc. 399
Docket Number: 
Parties: Emma Simpson, Respondent, v. Twenty-eighth Street Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 399–402

Head Matter:
Emma Simpson, Respondent, v. Twenty-eighth Street Company, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
November, 1915.)
Reward — for return of property — what is sufficient proof — when motion to dismiss granted.
In an action to recover a reward offered for the return of property, “ no questions asked,” mere proof that plaintiff gave information that led to the recovery of said property by virtue of criminal proceedings is not sufficient to justify a recovery, and defendant’s motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff’s ease should have been granted.
Bijur, J., dissents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fifth district, borough of Manhattan, on verdict of a jury in action to recover reward and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Gilbert & Wessel (Harry N. Wessel, of counsel), for appellant.
Samuel J. Joseph, for respondent.

Opinion:
Page, J.
The reward was offered for the return of the property, " no questions asked." The reward was not for information that would lead to the arrest or conviction of the thief and the ultimate recovery of the property by the public authorities. A person offering a reward may make his offer subject to any condition that he pleases and a contract arises only upon the performance of the condition. Therefore, when plaintiff proved merely that she gave information that led to the recovery of the property by virtue of criminal proceedings she did not prove facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and defendant's motion to dismiss at the close of the plaintiff's case should have been granted.
Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.