Case Name: SIMPSON v. TWENTY-EIGHTH ST. CO
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-11-15
Citations: 156 N.Y.S. 87
Docket Number: 
Parties: SIMPSON v. TWENTY-EIGHTH ST. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 156
Pages: 87–88

Head Matter:
(92 Misc. Rep. 399)
SIMPSON v. TWENTY-EIGHTH ST. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
November 15, 1915.)
REWABDS <S=8-OoNTKACT-PEEFOHMANCE.
Where a reward was offered for the return of lost rings, “no questions asked,” plaintiff, who merely gave information that led to the recovery ol‘ the property by criminal proceedings, was not entitled to such reward.
[Ed. Note.—-For other cases, see Rewards, Cent. Dig. §§ 9-12; Dec. Dig. <©=^>8.]
Bijur, J., dissenting.
<gss>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER 222 all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District.
Action by Emma Simpson against the Twenty-Eighth Street Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and from it, and an order denying its motion for new trial, defendant appeals. Judgment reversed, and complaint dismissed.
Argued October term, 1915, before BIJUR, PAGE, and SHEARN, JJ.
Gilbert & Wessel, of New York City (Harry N. Wessel, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Samuel J. Joseph, of New York City, for respondent.

Opinion:
PAGE, J.
The reward was offered for the return of the property, "no questions asked." The reward was not for information that would lead to the arrest or conviction of the thief and the ultimate recovery of the property by the public authorities. A person offering a reward may make his offer subject to any condition that he pleases, and a contract arises only upon the performance of the condition. Therefore, when plaintiff proved merely that she gave information that led to the recovery of. the property by virtue of criminal proceedings, she did not prove facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and de fendant's motion to dismiss at the close of the plaintiff's case should have been granted.
Judgment reversed, with $30 costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.
SHRARN, J" concurs.