Boehm v. Shedlinsky

New York Court of Common Pleas

Boehm v. Shedlinsky

15 N.Y.S. 974, 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 990, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 266

DecidedJuly 6, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 15 N.Y.S. 974 (Boehm v. Shedlinsky) 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

Boehm v. Shedlinsky, 15 N.Y.S. 974, 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 990, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 266 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The item of $14.45 damages to range and bursting of Water-pipes through freezing, which appears to be included in the amount for which the jury rendered their verdict for the plaintiff, was too remote, and should have been disallowed, and defendant’s exception to the refusal of the justice to instruct the jury to disallow that item requires a reversal of the judgment appealed from, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce her recovery to that extent. Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to . abide the event, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce the verdict and judgment appealed from by $14.45, in which event the judgment in the reduced amount is affirmed, without costs of this appeal.

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

Per Curiam.

The item of $14.45 damages to range and bursting of Water-pipes through freezing, which appears to be included in the amount for which the jury rendered their verdict for the plaintiff, was too remote, and should have been disallowed, and defendant’s exception to the refusal of the justice to instruct the jury to disallow that item requires a reversal of the judgment appealed from, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce her recovery to that extent. Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to . abide the event, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce the verdict and judgment appealed from by $14.45, in which event the judgment in the reduced amount is affirmed, without costs of this appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.Y.S. 974, 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 990, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boehm-v-shedlinsky-nyctcompl-1891.