Case Name: ADOLPHE M. WEISS, v. HARVEY FARRINGTON
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1883-06-02
Citations: 17 Jones & S. 512
Docket Number: 
Parties: ADOLPHE M. WEISS, v. HARVEY FARRINGTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 49
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
ADOLPHE M. WEISS, v. HARVEY FARRINGTON.
Contract—construction of.—Agreement to pay $200 per month, $100 to be spent in traveling expenses, detailed account of which is to be given, to be deemed absolute contract to pay $200 per month.
Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Ingraham, J.
Decided June 2, 1883.
Exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance at the general term, upon verdict directed for plaintiff.
The only question in this case was the construction of the agreement in which the action was brought. That agreement provided that defendant should pay to plaintiff one half of the profits accruing from sales of merchandise by plaintiff, for account of defendant, during the year 1881; and that the defendant should advance on account of said profits $200, at the end of each month—$100 to be applied in payment of his traveling expenses. It was also agreed that should half the profits not equal the amount above stated, there should be no charge by defendant' against plaintiff. Defendant claimed that under that contract, plaintiff was entitled to $100 per month, and traveling, and other expenses. The judge at the trial held that the plaintiff was entitled to the $200 per month, and directed a verdict accordingly.
The court at General Term said: “ I am of the opinion that the construction of the contract by the trial court was right. The defendant agreed to advance, not $100 per month and expenses, but $200 per month. That obligation was absolute ; it did not depend on the amount of the profits or On any other contingency ; and at the end of each month plaintiff was entitled to receive the advance of $200. The complaint alleges that said sum was not paid, and that the answer admits. There is nothing inconsistent with this obligation in the fact that plaintiff was to render a detailed account of his expenses. The obligation still remained, and on his performing his part of the agreement, he was-■entitled to enforce such obligation.’’
Stern & Myer, for plaintiff.
Edward Kempter, for defendant.

Opinion:
Opinion by Ingraham, J.; Sedgwick,. Ch. J., concurred.
Exceptions overruled and judgment ordered for plaintiff on the verdict with costs.