Birdsall v. Twenty-Third Street Railway Co.

New York Court of Common Pleas

Birdsall v. Twenty-Third Street Railway Co.

8 Daly 419

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedNovember 3, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 8 Daly 419 (Birdsall v. Twenty-Third Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Daly 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birdsall-v-twenty-third-street-railway-co-nyctcompl-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack