Beardsley v. . American Bonding Company of Baltimore

139 N.E. 723, 235 N.Y. 533, 1923 N.Y. LEXIS 1248
New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 27, 1923·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think the defendant has been improperly credited with payments made before September 7, 1909, to sub-brokers employed by plaintiff’s firm, and also for the firm’s office expenses.

The plaintiff’s recovery should, therefore, be increased by adding thereto the sum of $1,120.14.

As so modified, the judgment should be affirmed, without costs to either party as against the other.

Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Beardsley v. . American Bonding Company of Baltimore, 139 N.E. 723, 235 N.Y. 533, 1923 N.Y. LEXIS 1248 (N.Y. 1923).

139 N.E. 723 (Beardsley v. . American Bonding Company of Baltimore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gram v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
461 N.E.2d 796 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1984)