Braumann v. Vanderpoel

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Braumann v. Vanderpoel

26 Misc. 786, 56 N.Y.S. 216

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 26 Misc. 786 (Braumann v. Vanderpoel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Braumann v. Vanderpoel, 26 Misc. 786, 56 N.Y.S. 216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Freedman, P. J.

The pleadings were oral and the only issue raised arose on a plea of tender. No evidence concerning it was given, and, assuming there was some tender, it does not appear whether it was made before or after suit brought. This question [787]*787should have been properly determined npon competent evidence and a proper judgment rendered. If, then, the proof had shown that the tender was made before suit and that it was sufficient, the judgment should have been rendered in defendant’s favor. But if the tender was made after suit brought, the plaintiff should have had judgment for the amount due her. This question was determined in Ellenstein v. Klee, 12 Mise. Rep. 112, and under the decision of that case the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint in this case at bar was erroneous.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Freedman, P. J.

The pleadings were oral and the only issue raised arose on a plea of tender. No evidence concerning it was given, and, assuming there was some tender, it does not appear whether it was made before or after suit brought. This question [787]*787should have been properly determined npon competent evidence and a proper judgment rendered. If, then, the proof had shown that the tender was made before suit and that it was sufficient, the judgment should have been rendered in defendant’s favor. But if the tender was made after suit brought, the plaintiff should have had judgment for the amount due her. This question was determined in Ellenstein v. Klee, 12 Mise. Rep. 112, and under the decision of that case the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint in this case at bar was erroneous.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Misc. 786, 56 N.Y.S. 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braumann-v-vanderpoel-nyappterm-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack