Mayer v. Le Piemme

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Mayer v. Le Piemme

110 N.Y.S. 263

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 110 N.Y.S. 263 (Mayer v. Le Piemme) 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

Mayer v. Le Piemme, 110 N.Y.S. 263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

While we agree with the respondent that .this is an action to recover damages by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant in spoiling a dress, tire skirt of which had two spots on the front of it, which the defendant “agreed to clean,” but “so negligently and improperly performed” the work “as to make useless the dress to the plaintiff,” we think the finding of the justice that the value of the dress was $50 is not supported by sufficient evidence. The plaintiff testified that the value of the dress' when she left it with the defendant was “about $50,” that she paid “somewhere in that neighborhood for it,” that it was a summer dress, and that it was of no value to her at the time of the trial. This was the entire proof on the subject. The plaintiff failed to show when or where she bought the dress, the nature of the material composing it, the kind of dress, and the trimmings of the same, and whether it was old or new, or even what it cost.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

While we agree with the respondent that .this is an action to recover damages by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant in spoiling a dress, tire skirt of which had two spots on the front of it, which the defendant “agreed to clean,” but “so negligently and improperly performed” the work “as to make useless the dress to the plaintiff,” we think the finding of the justice that the value of the dress was $50 is not supported by sufficient evidence. The plaintiff testified that the value of the dress' when she left it with the defendant was “about $50,” that she paid “somewhere in that neighborhood for it,” that it was a summer dress, and that it was of no value to her at the time of the trial. This was the entire proof on the subject. The plaintiff failed to show when or where she bought the dress, the nature of the material composing it, the kind of dress, and the trimmings of the same, and whether it was old or new, or even what it cost.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 N.Y.S. 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayer-v-le-piemme-nyappterm-1908.