Oest v. Ovberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oest v. Ovberg

231 A.D. 866

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.D. 866 (Oest v. Ovberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oest v. Ovberg, 231 A.D. 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed upon the law and the facts and new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. The court was in error in excluding the value of the chattels prior to the month of July. The defendant was entitled to prove the difference in the value of the chattels before the wrong and afterward, in order that it might be determined whether the difference was less than the cost to repair. As between that difference and the cost to repair the plaintiff, respondent, was entitled to recover the lesser amount. Further, the judgment must be reversed for the reason that there is no proof of the value of said plaintiff’s interests as mortgagee at the time of the alleged wrong. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment and order reversed upon the law and the facts and new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. The court was in error in excluding the value of the chattels prior to the month of July. The defendant was entitled to prove the difference in the value of the chattels before the wrong and afterward, in order that it might be determined whether the difference was less than the cost to repair. As between that difference and the cost to repair the plaintiff, respondent, was entitled to recover the lesser amount. Further, the judgment must be reversed for the reason that there is no proof of the value of said plaintiff’s interests as mortgagee at the time of the alleged wrong. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D. 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oest-v-ovberg-nyappdiv-1930.