Moreland v. Delhaye

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Moreland v. Delhaye

111 N.Y.S. 641

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 30, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 111 N.Y.S. 641 (Moreland v. Delhaye) 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

Moreland v. Delhaye, 111 N.Y.S. 641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

Failure for a period of four days by the defendant to have men at work doing what for a sum certain he had agreed to do for the plaintiff, though not within a stipulated time, as that had apparently been waived, even with notice to proceed, was not purely a question of law herein, for “if the facts are disputed, or, if undisputed, they are of such a nature that reasonable men might differ in regard to the inferences proper to be drawn from them,” as herein, “then those inferences are to be drawn by a jury under proper instructions from the court.” Mead v. Parker, 111 N. Y. 259, 262, 18 N. E. 727, 728. The submission of the reasonableness of delay was, therefore, proper. As failure or temporary delay was found by the jury not unreasonable, so it was not necessarily a refusal to proceed, and the right of the defendant to recover upon his counterclaim to an amount justified by the evidence adduced followed as of course. The judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

GIEDERSEEEVE, P. J., concurs. SEABURY, J., concurs in result.

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

MacLEAN, J.

Failure for a period of four days by the defendant to have men at work doing what for a sum certain he had agreed to do for the plaintiff, though not within a stipulated time, as that had apparently been waived, even with notice to proceed, was not purely a question of law herein, for “if the facts are disputed, or, if undisputed, they are of such a nature that reasonable men might differ in regard to the inferences proper to be drawn from them,” as herein, “then those inferences are to be drawn by a jury under proper instructions from the court.” Mead v. Parker, 111 N. Y. 259, 262, 18 N. E. 727, 728. The submission of the reasonableness of delay was, therefore, proper. As failure or temporary delay was found by the jury not unreasonable, so it was not necessarily a refusal to proceed, and the right of the defendant to recover upon his counterclaim to an amount justified by the evidence adduced followed as of course. The judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

GIEDERSEEEVE, P. J., concurs. SEABURY, J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 N.Y.S. 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moreland-v-delhaye-nyappterm-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack