Case Name: Snow, Church & Co., Appellant, v. Alfred Schlesinger, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-08
Citations: 14 Misc. 627
Docket Number: 
Parties: Snow, Church & Co., Appellant, v. Alfred Schlesinger, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
NEW YORK COMMON PLEAS
ADDITIONAL GENERAL TERM,
AUGUST, 1895.
Snow, Church & Co., Appellant, v. Alfred Schlesinger, Respondent.
Appeal by the plaintiff from- a judgment of the District Court in the city of New York for the first judicial district,, rendered by the justice thereof, without a jury. . .
The nature of the action and the material facts are stated, in the opinion.
Henry K. Davis, for appellant.
Arnold O. Weil, for respondent.

Opinion:
Geigerich, J.
This action was upon a contract to recover thirty dollars, the subscription fee for one year to the plaintiff's collection agency. Judgment was rendered for the defendant. , , ' ,
The printed'instrument signed by the defendant; which was, put in .evidence, was not claimed- to be the. entire contract between the parties.
Parol .evidence of oral representations and promises, made by the soliciting-agent at the time the contract of subscription.. Was obtained, was admitted without objection,. Neither was\the, authority of that agent, to make the representations and promises disputed. On the contrary, the plaintiff's manager, himself testified that when informed by the defendant of them, he had said in response that it was."unusual" for the agent to make such an agreement.
We think, from a careful reading of fhe evidence, that there was ground for the decision the trial justice reached, either in the view that -the defendant had rescinded the.'contract upon the plaintiff's, 'failure to perform certain parts of the agree-, ment, or the view that, the subscription was conditional Upon the. defendant's finding the services afforded by the plaintiff satisfactory after a trial from on or about the 23d day of October, 1894, to the -1st day of January, 1895, and that he had informed the plaintiff of his dissatisfaction.
In either case only a question of fact .was presented,, and wé find in . the record no sufficient ground for disturbing the decision of the justice, the elements' which are required to-, review such determination being abs'ent. Lynes v. Hickey, 4 Misc. Rep. 522; 24 N. Y. Supp. 731; 54 N. Y. St. Repr. 120 ; Weiss v. Strauss, 14. N. Y. Supp. 776 39 N. Y. St. Repr. 78.
For. these reasons the judgment should- be affirmed, with costs.
JBisqhoff, J., concurs.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. - . .