Kahn v. Cecelia Co.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1941 |
| Citation | 40 F. Supp. 878 |
| Parties | KAHN v. CECELIA CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Abraham L. Bienstock, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Spence, Windels, Walser, Hotchkiss & Angell, of New York City (James H. Halpin, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.
This is a motion by the defendant to dismiss the first cause of action on the ground that it fails to state a claim.
The first cause of action alleges that on or about November 23, 1938, the plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with the defendant in New York whereby the plaintiff was employed by the defendant for a term of three years at a salary of $1,000 a week; that the plaintiff entered into the agreement "solely on condition that the terms thereof would be embodied in a duly executed written instrument and upon the express representation of defendant that such a written instrument would be prepared and executed by it"; that the plaintiff started upon the performance of his duties under the agreement, and was paid $1,000 a week until September 17, 1940, when he was wrongfully discharged; that at various times after November 23, 1938, the plaintiff requested the defendant to deliver to him a written instrument executed by the defendant embodying the terms of the agreement but that the defendant failed to comply with the request; and that the plaintiff relied on the defendant's representations with respect to the written instrument, continued in the performance of his duties "under the agreement, and expended large sums of money and considerable time and effort in the performance of such duties and materially changed his position to his detriment in reliance upon said agreement". The damages asked are $61,571.43, representing the salary of $1,000 a week for the unexpired period of the agreement.
Just prior to the argument of the motion, the parties, by written stipulation, limited its scope to a single question, namely, whether the first cause of action should be dismissed "on the ground that said first cause of action is barred by the Statute of Frauds".
Under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the Statute of Frauds is an affirmative defense to be pleaded, Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co., D.C., 27 F.Supp. 1020, but where the defect appears on the face of the pleading the question may be raised on motion to dismiss for insufficiency under Rule 12(b), Moore's Federal Practice, § 12.04, pp. 644-647.
The sole ground urged by the plaintiff to sustain the first cause of action is that the defendant is estopped to interpose the Statute of Frauds as a defense. Personal Property Law N.Y. § 31. This is a clear recognition that the cause of action cannot stand if the allegations in support of the estoppel are insufficient. These allegations are criticised by the defendant as mere conclusions. I prefer, however, not to take that ground, as I do not believe that "promissory estoppel", on which the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olympic Junior, Inc. v. David Crystal, Inc.
...Scheuer, 308 N.Y. 447, 126 N.E.2d 555 (1955); Newkirk v. C. C. Bradley & Son, 271 App.Div. 658, 67 N.Y.S.2d 459 (1947); Kahn v. Cecelia Co., 40 F.Supp. 878 (S.D.N.Y.1941); see also Babdo Sales, Inc. v. Miller-Wohl Co., 317 F. Supp. 892 (S.D.N.Y.1970), rev'd on other grounds, 440 F.2d 962 (2......
-
Olympic Holding Co., L.L.C. v. Ace Ltd.
...453, 457, quoting Morsinkhoff v. Deluxe Laundry & Dry Cleaning Co. (Mo. App.1961), 344 S.W.2d 639, 644. See also Kahn v. Cecelia Co. (D.C.N.Y.1941), 40 F.Supp. 878, 880, quoting Deutsch v. Textile Waste Merchandising (1925), 212 A.D. 681, 685, 209 N.Y.S. 388 (declining to enforce an oral ag......
-
McKinney v. National Dairy Council
...found in Part II, supra, governs with respect to the long-term contract found by the jury in its answer to Special Interrogatory 1, Kahn v. Cecelia Co., 40 F.Supp. 878 (S.D.N.Y.1941); Scheuer v. Scheuer, 308 N.Y. 447, 126 N.E.2d 555 (1955), for present purposes it may be assumed that promis......
-
Janke Construction Co., Inc. v. Vulcan Materials Co.
...where the oral contract comes within the statute of frauds except in cases involving charitable subscriptions. Kahn v. Cecelia Co., 40 F.Supp. 878 (S. D.N.Y.1941). Other jurisdictions have held that the defense of the statute is precluded either when there has been (1) a misrepresentation t......