Douglas v. Reynard

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Douglas v. Reynard

134 N.Y.S. 615

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 9, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 N.Y.S. 615 (Douglas v. Reynard) 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

Douglas v. Reynard, 134 N.Y.S. 615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sued for the value of professional services rendered as a dentist to defendant and his wife. At the opening of the trial defendant paid into court $150; and as defendant’s own expert testified that the services were reasonably worth the sum of $203, the court gave judgment to the plaintiff for $53, being the balance over and above the amount paid into court.

While section 148 of the Municipal Court Act permits payment into court before answer, it does not permit the payment after answer, as here, to deprive plaintiff of his right to a judgment for the full amount, with costs. Wiener v. Auerbach, 98 N. Y. Supp. 686; Stieglitz v. Cohen, 69 Misc. Rep. 634, 126 N. Y. Supp. 145.

As it is evident from the remarks of the learned trial judge in granting judgment that it was his intention to give plaintiff judgment for $203 and costs, the judgment is modified, by increasing the amount of recovery to the sum of $203 and appropriate costs in the court below, the sum of $150 paid into court to be applied thereon (Rumpf v. Schiff, 109 N. Y. Supp. 51), and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sued for the value of professional services rendered as a dentist to defendant and his wife. At the opening of the trial defendant paid into court $150; and as defendant’s own expert testified that the services were reasonably worth the sum of $203, the court gave judgment to the plaintiff for $53, being the balance over and above the amount paid into court.

While section 148 of the Municipal Court Act permits payment into court before answer, it does not permit the payment after answer, as here, to deprive plaintiff of his right to a judgment for the full amount, with costs. Wiener v. Auerbach, 98 N. Y. Supp. 686; Stieglitz v. Cohen, 69 Misc. Rep. 634, 126 N. Y. Supp. 145.

As it is evident from the remarks of the learned trial judge in granting judgment that it was his intention to give plaintiff judgment for $203 and costs, the judgment is modified, by increasing the amount of recovery to the sum of $203 and appropriate costs in the court below, the sum of $150 paid into court to be applied thereon (Rumpf v. Schiff, 109 N. Y. Supp. 51), and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 N.Y.S. 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-v-reynard-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack