Bennett v. Lockwood & Carter

20 Wend. 223
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1838
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 20 Wend. 223 (Bennett v. Lockwood & Carter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bennett v. Lockwood & Carter, 20 Wend. 223 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1838).

Opinion

By the Court, Nelson, Ch. J.

The defendant took the horse and wagon of the plaintiffs wrongfully, and used them, by reason of which taking the plaintiffs were induced to believe that the person to whom they had hired it temporarily had absconded, and therefore they went in pursuit of their property, and expended time and money. It is insisted for the plaintiff in error that the common pleas erred in allowing the plaintiffs to recover for the time spent and expenses incurred, on the ground that the damages thus claimed were not the natural or necessary consequence of the wrongful taking. Admitting the counsel for the plaintiff to be right in this proposition, it is no objection to the recovery if the damages in were proximate and not too remote, and were claimed the declaration. 1 Chitty’s R. 333. 1 Saund. Pl. and Ev. 136.

(Here the damages were duly claimed; they occurred in the use of reasonable means on the part of the plaintiffs to re-possess themselves of their property, and were occasioned by the wrongful act of the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

In Re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation
2010 ME 93 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2010)
Pickle v. Page
225 A.D. 454 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1929)
Cooper v. Richland County
56 S.E. 958 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1907)
First National Bank v. Williams
63 P. 744 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1901)
Pickens v. South Carolina & Georgia R. R.
32 S.E. 567 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1899)
Laughlin v. Barnes & Parrott
76 Mo. App. 258 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Bracken v. Atlantic Trust Co.
23 Misc. 579 (New York Supreme Court, 1898)
Mack v. South Bound R. R.
40 L.R.A. 679 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1898)
Burlington & M. R. Railroad v. Budin
6 Colo. App. 275 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1895)
Davis Sewing-Machine Co. v. Best
4 N.Y.S. 510 (New York Supreme Court, 1888)
O'Neil v. Davis
1 White & W. 183 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1883)
City Council of Montgomery v. Wright
72 Ala. 411 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1882)
Salmon v. Olds & King
9 Or. 488 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1881)
State v. Manchester & Lawrence Railroad
52 N.H. 528 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1873)
Clinton v. Townsend
46 How. Pr. 42 (New York Supreme Court, 1873)
Burrage v. Melson
48 Miss. 237 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1873)
Albert v. Bleecker Street
2 Daly 389 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1868)
McDonald v. North
47 Barb. 530 (New York Supreme Court, 1867)
Rice v. Nickerson
91 Mass. 478 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1864)
Underhill v. City of Manchester
45 N.H. 214 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1864)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Wend. 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-lockwood-carter-nysupct-1838.