Eugene C. Lewis Co. v. Metropolitan Realty Co.

112 A.D. 385, 98 N.Y.S. 391, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 687
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 20, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 112 A.D. 385 (Eugene C. Lewis Co. v. Metropolitan Realty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eugene C. Lewis Co. v. Metropolitan Realty Co., 112 A.D. 385, 98 N.Y.S. 391, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

It is claimed that the exemption clause in the léase for damage by leakage prevents a recovéry for the damage to the plaintiff’s assignors as well as for the damage- to the 'plaintiff; It is enough to say [387]*387that such exemption clause did not in terms exempt the defendant for liability to the plaintiff for acts of negligence by it, and no such exemption can be implied. The recovery here is for the affirmative act of negligence in putting on the manhole cover defectively (Levin v. Habicht, 45 Misc. Rep. 381; Rathbone v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 140 N. Y. 48).

The fact that the tank had been watertight and that the leak around the edges of the manhole immediately showed itself after the taking of it off to clean the tank and the replacing of it by the defendant, was in itself evidence that the cover had been negligently replaced, under the maxim that the thing speaks for itself, and in addition there was evidence that the rubber gasket or washer had not been properly put in.

The reading of this case is rendered burdensome by much colloquy between counsel and the court, and discussion of counsel, which it should not contain at all. A case on appeal should be stripped of all such matter, unless it be excepted to, or contain an admission, or the like.

The judgment and order should be affirmed.

Woodward, Jenks and Rich, JJ., concurred; Hirschberg, P. J., concurred in result.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Meyer Jewelry Co. v. Professional Building Co.
307 S.W.2d 517 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1957)
Freddi-Gail, Inc. v. Royal Holding Corp.
111 A.2d 636 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
Kuzmiak v. Brookchester
111 A.2d 425 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
Kirshenbaum v. General Outdoor Advertising Co.
180 N.E. 245 (New York Court of Appeals, 1932)
Kessler v. Ansonia
222 A.D. 148 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1927)
Kessler v. Ansonia
129 Misc. 342 (New York Supreme Court, 1927)
Gordon & Cohen, Inc. v. Rose
211 A.D. 808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)
Cohn v. Graber
201 A.D. 264 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1922)
Newell Bridge & Railway Co. v. East Liverpool Traction & Light Co.
7 Ohio App. 241 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 A.D. 385, 98 N.Y.S. 391, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eugene-c-lewis-co-v-metropolitan-realty-co-nyappdiv-1906.