Gearing v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gearing v. Harris

255 A.D. 824, 7 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5439

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 7, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 824 (Gearing v. Harris) 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

Gearing v. Harris, 255 A.D. 824, 7 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The plaintiff’s cause of action alleged in the complaint is for breach of contract and he demands judgment for the value of the use and occupation of his farm during the time that it was in’ possession of the defendant. He proved such value on the trial and was entitled to recover the same as special damages. (Smith v. Steward, 6 Johns. 46; Castle v. Armstead, 168 App. Div. 466; affd., 219 N. Y. 615.) Even though there were some portions of the charge of the court which were subject to exception, the defendant was not aggrieved by the verdict of the jury awarding plaintiff dam[825]*825ages for loss of use and occupation of his premises. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action to recover value of occupation of farm.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The plaintiff’s cause of action alleged in the complaint is for breach of contract and he demands judgment for the value of the use and occupation of his farm during the time that it was in’ possession of the defendant. He proved such value on the trial and was entitled to recover the same as special damages. (Smith v. Steward, 6 Johns. 46; Castle v. Armstead, 168 App. Div. 466; affd., 219 N. Y. 615.) Even though there were some portions of the charge of the court which were subject to exception, the defendant was not aggrieved by the verdict of the jury awarding plaintiff dam[825]*825ages for loss of use and occupation of his premises. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action to recover value of occupation of farm.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 824, 7 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gearing-v-harris-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack