Nixson v. Reilly

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Nixson v. Reilly

107 N.Y.S. 1139

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 12, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 107 N.Y.S. 1139 (Nixson v. Reilly) 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

Nixson v. Reilly, 107 N.Y.S. 1139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM,

This action is brought to recover a balance due for work, labor, and services in the installation of an elevator. The agreement was in writing, and by its terms the plaintiff guaranteed its operation for a year. The defendant produced evidence tending to show ■ that the elevator was not properly installed and was constantly out of repair, that the plaintiff failed to make the necessary repairs, and that the defendant did so at his own cost and expense. The trial court found that the elevator was accepted by the defendant and that' there was no legal evidence that the sums expended by him in making repairs within the year were the fair and reasonable value of such repairs. We are of the opinion, after a careful review of the evidence, that the ends of justice will be best subserved by a new trial, when all the facts may be properly placed before the court. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM,

This action is brought to recover a balance due for work, labor, and services in the installation of an elevator. The agreement was in writing, and by its terms the plaintiff guaranteed its operation for a year. The defendant produced evidence tending to show ■ that the elevator was not properly installed and was constantly out of repair, that the plaintiff failed to make the necessary repairs, and that the defendant did so at his own cost and expense. The trial court found that the elevator was accepted by the defendant and that' there was no legal evidence that the sums expended by him in making repairs within the year were the fair and reasonable value of such repairs. We are of the opinion, after a careful review of the evidence, that the ends of justice will be best subserved by a new trial, when all the facts may be properly placed before the court. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 N.Y.S. 1139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nixson-v-reilly-nyappterm-1907.