Baisley v. Rose Brick Co.

10 N.Y. St. Rep. 869
New York Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1887·Published

Opinion

Pratt, J.

—The decision of this case turns upon the question whether Baisley was at the time of eviction a tenant of the defendant company. The court below has found as a fact that he was such tenant and there is evidence sufficient to support the finding.

There being no validity in the proceedings to dispossess Baisley, and he being a tenant, the eviction was without justification, and any person injured thereby could maintain an action; she charges that defendant, without any right, came to her house and drove her out doors, whereby she became sick. These facts make out a cause of action.

We have examined the other exceptions in the case, but find no error sufficient to warrant a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J., concur.

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

Baisley v. Rose Brick Co., 10 N.Y. St. Rep. 869 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

10 N.Y. St. Rep. 869 (Baisley v. Rose Brick Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.