Davis v. Evans

New York Supreme Court

Davis v. Evans

13 N.Y.S. 437, 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 714, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1161

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 N.Y.S. 437 (Davis v. Evans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Evans, 13 N.Y.S. 437, 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 714, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1161 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.

There was no defense to this action, and there is no merit in the appeal from the judgment. The defendant" piled a quantity of sand against the brick wall of the plaintiffs’ building, and the pressure was sufficient to push in the wall. The fact of the breach was undisputed, and no adequate cause was assigned therefor, except the pressure resulting from the bank of sand, and with the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff we must assume that to have been the cause. The use by the defendant of his premises in a manner that injured the property of the plaintiff was wrongful, and rendered the defendant liable for the damage which resulted from such use. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. AH concur.

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

Dykman, J.

There was no defense to this action, and there is no merit in the appeal from the judgment. The defendant" piled a quantity of sand against the brick wall of the plaintiffs’ building, and the pressure was sufficient to push in the wall. The fact of the breach was undisputed, and no adequate cause was assigned therefor, except the pressure resulting from the bank of sand, and with the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff we must assume that to have been the cause. The use by the defendant of his premises in a manner that injured the property of the plaintiff was wrongful, and rendered the defendant liable for the damage which resulted from such use. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. AH concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 N.Y.S. 437, 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 714, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-evans-nysupct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack