Contracts · MBE-tested

Alexander Ross, Appellant, v. Julius Blum, Trading under the Firm Name, etc., Respondent

215 A.D. 721·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1925·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

Alexander Ross, Appellant, v. Julius Blum, Trading under the Firm Name, etc., Respondent. [MAJORITY] Order directing plaintiff to serve further amended complaint reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. We think that the amended complaint sufficiently alleges a single contract of employment, and that plaintiff should not, therefore, be required to split up his claim into several distinct and separate causes of action. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur.