Droege v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Droege v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

91 N.Y.S. 71

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 17, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 91 N.Y.S. 71 (Droege v. Interurban Street Railway Co.) 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

Droege v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 91 N.Y.S. 71 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

GIEDERSLEEVE, J.

The only point made by the appellant ■herein is that the damages given the plaintiff in the judgment exceed the damages proven. In this the appellant is correct.

Plaintiff claimed for injuries to person and damages to personal property. For injuries to his person he claimed $150, and for injuries to his clothing he claimed $50. Upon the trial the only evidence given as to the damages to his clothing was the cost price of the several damaged articles when new, and all of such clothing was shown to have been worn for a considerable period of time prior to the accident. Upon this being pointed out to the trial judge at the close of the trial, upon motion made by defendant’s attorney the testimony regarding damages to plaintiff’s clothing was stricken out; nevertheless the court, probably inadvertently, rendered a judgment for the full amount claimed, viz., $200. The judgment should therefore be modified.

Judgment modified by reducing the amount of recovery to $150, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs to either party. All concur.

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

GIEDERSLEEVE, J.

The only point made by the appellant ■herein is that the damages given the plaintiff in the judgment exceed the damages proven. In this the appellant is correct.

Plaintiff claimed for injuries to person and damages to personal property. For injuries to his person he claimed $150, and for injuries to his clothing he claimed $50. Upon the trial the only evidence given as to the damages to his clothing was the cost price of the several damaged articles when new, and all of such clothing was shown to have been worn for a considerable period of time prior to the accident. Upon this being pointed out to the trial judge at the close of the trial, upon motion made by defendant’s attorney the testimony regarding damages to plaintiff’s clothing was stricken out; nevertheless the court, probably inadvertently, rendered a judgment for the full amount claimed, viz., $200. The judgment should therefore be modified.

Judgment modified by reducing the amount of recovery to $150, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs to either party. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.Y.S. 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/droege-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1904.