History
  • No items yet
midpage
Melle v. Candelora
88 N.Y.S. 385
N.Y. App. Term.
1904
Check Treatment
SCOTT, J.

The contract upon which defendants rely is written in English. The plaintiff knows no English, and is unable to read either that language or Italian. There was a conflict of evidence as to whether the agreement was translated to him, or, if translated, whether it was ■correctly translated. Unless the plaintiff knew what he was signing, lie cannot be held bound by the written contract. As between him and the persons connected with the so-called Law and Collection Agency, no fault can be found with the justice, if he believed plaintiff. Finding, as he must have done, that the plaintiff did not know what he was signing, the justice was justified in permitting oral evidence of what the real agreement was. And again, no fault can be found if he believed plaintiff. If plaintiff’s story be accepted, the money deposited by him, and for which he sues, was not earned, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Melle v. Candelora
Court Name: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Date Published: May 19, 1904
Citation: 88 N.Y.S. 385
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Term.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.