Case Name: Jacob Meehan, Resp't, v. Jacob D. Butler, App'lt
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-12-05
Citations: 3 N.Y. St. Rep. 556
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jacob Meehan, Resp’t, v. Jacob D. Butler, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 3
Pages: 556–557

Head Matter:
Jacob Meehan, Resp’t, v. Jacob D. Butler, App’lt.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed December 5, 1886.)
Judgment—Action on an agreement—Admission—When not reversed.
In an action before a justice on an agreement, it was admitted at the out set by defendant’s counsel that “ There is a certain amount due; I do not know the amount. There is the sum of ninety-four dollars to be paid.” Held, on appeal that judgment being rendered for this amount and costs, in view, of the conflicting evidence presented by the return of the justice, there was no reason to overrule it.
J. P. Fallon, for resp’t; John G. Shaw, for app’lt.

Opinion:
Larremore, C. J.
The appellant relies upon Murray v. Baker (6 Hun., 264), as authority for reversing this judgment. In that case it was held that the plaintiff's right of recovery was dependant upon a condition precedent with which there was no proof of compliance.
In this case it was admitted at the outset by defendant's counsel, " There is a certain amount due, I don't know the amount. There is the sum of ninety-four dollars to be paid. " For this amount and costs, judgment was rendered, and I fail to see in view of the conflicting testimony presented by the return why the conclusion of the justice should be overruled.
The judgment appealed from, should be affirmed with costs.