Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Charles Henry Phelps, Respondent, v. The Cable Railway Company, Appellant, 1890 — 122 N.Y. 639 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Charles Henry Phelps, Respondent, v. The Cable Railway Company, Appellant
122 N.Y. 639·New York Court of Appeals·1890·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Charles Henry Phelps, Respondent, v. The Cable Railway Company, Appellant.
(Argued June 3, 1890;
decided October 21, 1890.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon ah order made March 2, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a decision of the court on trial without a jury.
This action was brought to recover commissions alleged to have been earned by plaintiff in effecting a sale, as broker, of certain patent rights belonging to defendant.
The questions litigated were as to the terms of the contract between the parties, the amount plaintiff was entitled to thereunder, and as to whether and to what extent the same was affected by an alleged breach of contract on the^part of defendant with the purchaser.
Julien T. Davies for appellant.
Noah Davis for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Potter, J., reads for reversal and new trial.
All concur, except Haight and Brown, JJ., dissenting.
Judgment reversed.