Healy v. Bulkley

New York City Court

Healy v. Bulkley

10 N.Y.S. 702, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 243, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 940

CourtNew York City Court

DecidedJune 23, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 N.Y.S. 702 (Healy v. Bulkley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Healy v. Bulkley, 10 N.Y.S. 702, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 243, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 940 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for breach of contract for the building of a house, and on the trial it was claimed that the defendant delayed performance, and that there were defects in the work. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $450, and from the judgment entered thereon this appeal is taken. We are only called upon to review certain exceptions, and, after a careful examination of the same, we think that there was no erroneous ruling which resulted injuriously to the rights of the defendant. It was proper to allow the plaintiff to show the cost of removal of defective material, and of replacing the same in accordance with the contract. Such cost did not necessarily constitute the measure of damage, but the testimony was properly admitted', to be weighed by the jury in arriving at a conclusion. Kidd v. McCormick, 83 N. Y. 391. The request to charge as to the rule of damages was properly refused as too general. It was the correct rule as to defective workmanship or poor ma[703]*703terial, but in this case there was also a claim for material not furnished, and for delay in the performance of the work. Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for breach of contract for the building of a house, and on the trial it was claimed that the defendant delayed performance, and that there were defects in the work. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $450, and from the judgment entered thereon this appeal is taken. We are only called upon to review certain exceptions, and, after a careful examination of the same, we think that there was no erroneous ruling which resulted injuriously to the rights of the defendant. It was proper to allow the plaintiff to show the cost of removal of defective material, and of replacing the same in accordance with the contract. Such cost did not necessarily constitute the measure of damage, but the testimony was properly admitted', to be weighed by the jury in arriving at a conclusion. Kidd v. McCormick, 83 N. Y. 391. The request to charge as to the rule of damages was properly refused as too general. It was the correct rule as to defective workmanship or poor ma[703]*703terial, but in this case there was also a claim for material not furnished, and for delay in the performance of the work. Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.Y.S. 702, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 243, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/healy-v-bulkley-nycityct-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack