Case Name: Wallace S. Jacobs, Respondent, v. Albert Stieglitz et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Halle & Stieglitz, Appellants, Impleaded with Others
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1928-10-09
Citations: 249 N.Y. 509
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wallace S. Jacobs, Respondent, v. Albert Stieglitz et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Halle & Stieglitz, Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 249
Pages: 509–510

Head Matter:
Wallace S. Jacobs, Respondent, v. Albert Stieglitz et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Halle & Stieglitz, Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
(Argued October 1, 1928;
decided October 9, 1928.)
Osmond K. Fraenkel for appellants.
Abraham Benedict and Gustavus A. Rogers for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Without attempting to determine the effect of the admissions of the supplemental complaint in their bearing on the defendants' counterclaim, we hold that they are not so inconsistent with the cause of action for an account stated as to justify a dismissal of the original complaint at this stage of the controversy.
No other question has been certified to this court.
Neither in the supplemental pleading, nor in the reply to the amended answer, is there an unequivocal admission that the plaintiff has charged his account with a lien in the defendants' favor.
The order should be affirmed with costs, and the question certified answered " No."
Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound. Crane, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O'Brien, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed, etc.