Pace v. United States Drainage & Irrigation Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Pace v. United States Drainage & Irrigation Co.

138 N.Y.S. 420

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 138 N.Y.S. 420 (Pace v. United States Drainage & Irrigation Co.) 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

Pace v. United States Drainage & Irrigation Co., 138 N.Y.S. 420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff sues for the reasonable value of services rendered to the defendant, at its request, in the capacity of engineer in charge of constructing a dam. The question of compensation for the work was left for subsequent adjustment, and was never adjusted. Upon conflicting evidence the court decided that the services were reasonably worth $50 per week, and that the plaintiff was employed for 6 weeks 4% days.

[1,2] There was no prejudicial error committed, and there is no valid reason for disturbing this conclusion. The judgment entered was for $327.50 and costs. In computing this amount, an error of $10 was. committed. The total should have been $337.50. But, on the other hand, the court neglected to deduct a payment of $54.17, which was admitted in the complaint. Making this correction reduces the recovery to $283.33. As this amount is less than $300, the costs must be reduced to $20.

The judgment will be modified, by reducing the same to the sum of $303.33, and, as modified, affirmed, with $15 costs to respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff sues for the reasonable value of services rendered to the defendant, at its request, in the capacity of engineer in charge of constructing a dam. The question of compensation for the work was left for subsequent adjustment, and was never adjusted. Upon conflicting evidence the court decided that the services were reasonably worth $50 per week, and that the plaintiff was employed for 6 weeks 4% days.

[1,2] There was no prejudicial error committed, and there is no valid reason for disturbing this conclusion. The judgment entered was for $327.50 and costs. In computing this amount, an error of $10 was. committed. The total should have been $337.50. But, on the other hand, the court neglected to deduct a payment of $54.17, which was admitted in the complaint. Making this correction reduces the recovery to $283.33. As this amount is less than $300, the costs must be reduced to $20.

The judgment will be modified, by reducing the same to the sum of $303.33, and, as modified, affirmed, with $15 costs to respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 N.Y.S. 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pace-v-united-states-drainage-irrigation-co-nyappterm-1912.