Case Name: William F. Howe et al., Resp'ts, v. Isabella Schweinburg, Adm'rx, App'lt
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-12-22
Citations: 49 N.Y. St. Rep. 882
Docket Number: 
Parties: William F. Howe et al., Resp’ts, v. Isabella Schweinburg, Adm’rx, App’lt
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 49
Pages: 882–883

Head Matter:
William F. Howe et al., Resp’ts, v. Isabella Schweinburg, Adm’rx, App’lt
(City Court of New York,, General Term,
Filed December 22, 1892.)
Trial—Direction oe verdict—Witness.
In an action to recover a balance claimed to be due under an alleged contract by defendant’s intestate to pay for legal services, the testimony of plaintiffs’ clerk as to the contract was full, clear, positive and uncontra-
dieted. Held, that it was not necessary that his testimony should be submitted to the jury, and that the court properly directed a verdict.
(FiTzsnKms, J., dissents.)
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered on verdict directed by the court.
Abram Kling, for app’lt; David Leventritt, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Ehrlich, Ch. J.
The plaintiffs declared upon and proved a special contract, by which the intestate, prior to his death, agreed to pay the plaintiffs a specified sum of money, as a fee, if they succeeded in accomplishing certain results, which they ultimately brought about after the expenditure of time and labor.
The plaintiffs received part of the fee, and the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for the balance.
The evidence of Moss, the plaintiff's clerk, as to the contract, relied upon, is full, positive, clear and uncontradicted, and the witness stood unimpeached.
Within the rule, therefore, that where an unimpeached witness •gives testimony uncontradicted, either by other witnesses or by •circumstances, and, moreover, natural, plausible and probable, such testimony is conclusive, must be accepted by the court, and need not be submitted to the jury. Kelly v. Borroughs, 102 N. Y., 95; 1 St. Rep., 161; Lomer v. Meeker, 25 N. Y, 361; Plyer v. German Am. Insurance Co., 121 id., 692; 31 St. Rep, 836.
There is no merit in the exceptions,, and no error requiring a .new trial.
It follows that the judgment must be affirmed, with costs. »
Hewburger, J., concurs.