Lee v. Mark C. Tredennick Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lee v. Mark C. Tredennick Co.

126 Misc. 613, 214 N.Y.S. 492, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1066

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 30, 1925·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

Peb Curiam.

Although the evidence does not satisfactorily establish that defendant’s failure to construct the trimmer arch was the cause of the fire, defendant having concededly breached its contract it Was error to award judgment to defendant, carrying as it does the statutory costs.

[614]*614Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for six cents.

Present, Bijur, Levy and Churchill, JJ.

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

Peb Curiam.

Although the evidence does not satisfactorily establish that defendant’s failure to construct the trimmer arch was the cause of the fire, defendant having concededly breached its contract it Was error to award judgment to defendant, carrying as it does the statutory costs.

[614]*614Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for six cents.

Present, Bijur, Levy and Churchill, JJ.

Lee v. Mark C. Tredennick Co., 126 Misc. 613, 214 N.Y.S. 492, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

126 Misc. 613 (Lee v. Mark C. Tredennick Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related