Case Name: Charles H. Reiher, Appellant, v. Edward Moellner et al., Respondents
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-10
Citations: 10 Misc. 43
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles H. Reiher, Appellant, v. Edward Moellner et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 43–44

Head Matter:
Charles H. Reiher, Appellant, v. Edward Moellner et al., Respondents.
(City Court of New York
General Term,
October, 1894.)
A provision in an agreement to indemnify against any judgment that might be procured in a pending action, that certain attorneys should be permitted to defend said action at all times during its existence, is a condition precedent to liability, and a refusal to comply with it releases the indemnitors.
Appeal by the plaintiff from an order overruling demurrer to the eighth paragraph of defendants’ answer.
George L. Hoffmcm, for appellant.
Blumenstíél da Hirsch, for respondents.

Opinion:
Ehrlich, Oh. J.
The action is on a covenant whereby the defendants agreed to hold Steuerwald & Moltz harmless from any judgment that might be awarded against them in an action then pending by one Bernstein, and, in case such suit was determined adversely to that firm, to pay the judgment obtained.
The eighth paragraph of the answer admits the agreement, but alleges that it was therein provided that Steuerwald & Moltz would permit the firm of Blumenstiel & Hirsch to defend said action at all times during the entire existence of the same; that prior to the time when the action was reached for trial Steuerwald & Moltz violated the agreement by refusing to allow Blumenstiel & Hirsch to continue as the attorneys for the defendant, and required that firm to deliver the papers to other attorneys.
That Blumenstiel & Hirsch were thereafter prevented from performing the services contemplated by the indemnity.
If, as stated in the answer, the promise to indemnify was upon condition that Blumenstiel & Hirsch should be allowed to defend the action, that provision was a condition precedent to liability, and, when Steuerwald & Moltz refused to comply with it, the defendants were absolved from liability.
So that neither Steuerwald & Moltz nor the plaintiff, as their assignee, has any cause of action.
Eor these reasons the court below properly overruled the demurrer, and the order appealed from must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.
Hewbttrg-er and Fitzsihohs, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed, with costs.