Birdsall v. Twenty-Third Street Railway Co.

8 Daly 419
New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided November 3, 1879·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Chables P. Daly, Chief Justice,

delivered orally the opinion of the court, which was, that the agreement was for liquidated damages ; that it was intended to provide against uncertain damages, and it was quite clear that in a casa-of such a character the loss to the company would be much larger Than it would be able to prove bv the specific dishonest violations of the rule that might come to their knowledge ; that the drivers violated the rule, fully comprehending their liability, and, under the circumstances, the sum of $15 was not oppressive. It was also, in the opinion of the court, clear that the company’s omission to discharge the drivers upon discovery of the violation of the rule was not a waiver of the agreement. The judgment was therefore reversed.

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

Birdsall v. Twenty-Third Street Railway Co., 8 Daly 419 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1879).

8 Daly 419 (Birdsall v. Twenty-Third Street Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ressig v. Waldorf-Astoria Hotel Co.
185 A.D. 4 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1918)
Rozen v. Dry-Dock, East Broadway & Battery Railroad
27 N.Y.S. 337 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1894)
Hogan v. Burton
4 Silv. Sup. 575 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)
Gallagher v. Christopher & Tenth Street Railroad
14 Daly 366 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1888)