New York House Wrecking Co. v. Jarvis

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

New York House Wrecking Co. v. Jarvis

87 N.Y.S. 464

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 24, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 87 N.Y.S. 464 (New York House Wrecking Co. v. Jarvis) 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

New York House Wrecking Co. v. Jarvis, 87 N.Y.S. 464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

We see no theory upon which the verdict in this case can be upheld. In order to render a verdict for the plaintiff in any sum at all, the jury must have found that the contract between the parties was that the defendant agreed to deliver to plaintiff 150,000 feet of that kind of lumber known as “beams,” and that he did not deliver that amount.- It is undisputed that the shortage came to upwards of 25,000 feet. These facts being found, as the verdict shows that they must have been, in favor of plaintiff, it was entitled to recover the fair market value of that amount which was not delivered. The only evidence on the question of value—and it was not disputed or questioned in any way—was that the beams were worth about $18 per thousand feet. The jury awarded about $1.50. This award was grossly and obviously inadequate, and indicates that the result must have been arrived at without the slightest regard to the evidence as to value.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

SCOTT, J.

We see no theory upon which the verdict in this case can be upheld. In order to render a verdict for the plaintiff in any sum at all, the jury must have found that the contract between the parties was that the defendant agreed to deliver to plaintiff 150,000 feet of that kind of lumber known as “beams,” and that he did not deliver that amount.- It is undisputed that the shortage came to upwards of 25,000 feet. These facts being found, as the verdict shows that they must have been, in favor of plaintiff, it was entitled to recover the fair market value of that amount which was not delivered. The only evidence on the question of value—and it was not disputed or questioned in any way—was that the beams were worth about $18 per thousand feet. The jury awarded about $1.50. This award was grossly and obviously inadequate, and indicates that the result must have been arrived at without the slightest regard to the evidence as to value.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 N.Y.S. 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-house-wrecking-co-v-jarvis-nyappterm-1904.