Burke v. City of New York

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Burke v. City of New York

108 N.Y.S. 650

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 7, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 108 N.Y.S. 650 (Burke v. City of New York) 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

Burke v. City of New York, 108 N.Y.S. 650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff sold to the defendant a split tripod, for which he claims $220.' The justice gave him judgment for that sum, with interest and costs. Defendant appeals, and urges as the sole ground for reversal that the market price was $198, and not $220.

The only witness as to the market value was one Weislcer, who testified thus: “Q. What was the market value of such an instrument on March 16, 1907? A. $220.” It appears on cross-examination, however, that defendant, at the time plaintiff made the purchase of the tripod, in order to deliver same to defendant, could have purchased the same in the market for $198. Had the city occasion, at this time, to replace a lost tripod of the kind in question, it could have bought the same in the market for $198.

The judgment should be reduced by $22, and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs to either party.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff sold to the defendant a split tripod, for which he claims $220.' The justice gave him judgment for that sum, with interest and costs. Defendant appeals, and urges as the sole ground for reversal that the market price was $198, and not $220.

The only witness as to the market value was one Weislcer, who testified thus: “Q. What was the market value of such an instrument on March 16, 1907? A. $220.” It appears on cross-examination, however, that defendant, at the time plaintiff made the purchase of the tripod, in order to deliver same to defendant, could have purchased the same in the market for $198. Had the city occasion, at this time, to replace a lost tripod of the kind in question, it could have bought the same in the market for $198.

The judgment should be reduced by $22, and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs to either party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 N.Y.S. 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-city-of-new-york-nyappterm-1908.