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

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 30, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 Misc. 613 (Lee v. Mark C. Tredennick 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 Misc. 613, 214 N.Y.S. 492, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-mark-c-tredennick-co-nyappterm-1925.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack