Bleakley v. Sheridan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bleakley v. Sheridan

115 A.D. 657, 100 N.Y.S. 1029, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3035

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 16, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 115 A.D. 657 (Bleakley v. Sheridan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bleakley v. Sheridan, 115 A.D. 657, 100 N.Y.S. 1029, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

■ The complaint alleges that the plaintiff chartered a scow to the defendant under an agreement that it should not be sent to a certain place which was dangerous at that season of the year; that the defendant took the scow there and it was damaged by being blown ashore. The damages alleged are the expense of getting the scow off and repairing it, and for the use of the scow meanwhile. As the damages sued for were unliquidated, the. plaintiff was not entitled to interest (Excelsior Terra Cotta Co. v. Harde, 181 N. Y. 11; Smith v. Velie, 60 id. 106). The action is not for a conversion as the. plaintiff contends, or in tort, but for a breach of contract. The order should be affirmed.

Hieschbeeg, P. J., Woodwabd, High and Milleb, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Gaynor, J.:

■ The complaint alleges that the plaintiff chartered a scow to the defendant under an agreement that it should not be sent to a certain place which was dangerous at that season of the year; that the defendant took the scow there and it was damaged by being blown ashore. The damages alleged are the expense of getting the scow off and repairing it, and for the use of the scow meanwhile. As the damages sued for were unliquidated, the. plaintiff was not entitled to interest (Excelsior Terra Cotta Co. v. Harde, 181 N. Y. 11; Smith v. Velie, 60 id. 106). The action is not for a conversion as the. plaintiff contends, or in tort, but for a breach of contract. The order should be affirmed.

Hieschbeeg, P. J., Woodwabd, High and Milleb, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D. 657, 100 N.Y.S. 1029, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bleakley-v-sheridan-nyappdiv-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack