Adriance v. Netschert

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Adriance v. Netschert

35 Misc. 817, 72 N.Y.S. 1093

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Misc. 817 (Adriance v. Netschert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adriance v. Netschert, 35 Misc. 817, 72 N.Y.S. 1093 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The representations of plaintiff Adriance as to the condition of the water pipes and arrangements connected therewith, to prevent leakage, were independent of the lease itself and binding. The damages incurred in that behalf should have been allowed in the court below. Even had that been done, [818]*818the plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment for the balance of their claim and interest, which should have been awarded to them, instead of a judgment for defendant as ordered.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The representations of plaintiff Adriance as to the condition of the water pipes and arrangements connected therewith, to prevent leakage, were independent of the lease itself and binding. The damages incurred in that behalf should have been allowed in the court below. Even had that been done, [818]*818the plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment for the balance of their claim and interest, which should have been awarded to them, instead of a judgment for defendant as ordered.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 817, 72 N.Y.S. 1093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adriance-v-netschert-nyappterm-1901.