Malony v. Brady

New York Court of Common Pleas

Malony v. Brady

18 N.Y.S. 757, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 864

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedMay 2, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 18 N.Y.S. 757 (Malony v. Brady) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Malony v. Brady, 18 N.Y.S. 757, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 864 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As the party ultimately answerable for the wrong, defendant is bound to indemnify plaintiff. Sulzbacher v. Dickie, 6 Daly, 469, is an explicit authority in support of defendant’s liability. Moreover, on a former appeal in this case, we adjudged the defendant liable upon a state of facts substantially identical with that established on the trial under review. Malony v. Brady, 14 N. Y. Supp. 794. In this court, at all events, the question is concluded. We may adS„ however, that the defendant’s guaranty afforded another and independent ground of recovery. The sum paid by plaintiff to repair the effects of defendant’s negligence, unless it were excessive, is t the proper measure of the damages for which he was responsible. The cases i cited by the appellant are not at all to the contrary. We perceive no error in, the return, and accordingly the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

As the party ultimately answerable for the wrong, defendant is bound to indemnify plaintiff. Sulzbacher v. Dickie, 6 Daly, 469, is an explicit authority in support of defendant’s liability. Moreover, on a former appeal in this case, we adjudged the defendant liable upon a state of facts substantially identical with that established on the trial under review. Malony v. Brady, 14 N. Y. Supp. 794. In this court, at all events, the question is concluded. We may adS„ however, that the defendant’s guaranty afforded another and independent ground of recovery. The sum paid by plaintiff to repair the effects of defendant’s negligence, unless it were excessive, is t the proper measure of the damages for which he was responsible. The cases i cited by the appellant are not at all to the contrary. We perceive no error in, the return, and accordingly the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 N.Y.S. 757, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malony-v-brady-nyctcompl-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack