Phillips v. Citizens' Gaslight Co.

New York Supreme Court

Phillips v. Citizens' Gaslight Co.

21 N.Y.S. 1109, 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 553

DecidedFebruary 13, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 21 N.Y.S. 1109 (Phillips v. Citizens' Gaslight Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Phillips v. Citizens' Gaslight Co., 21 N.Y.S. 1109, 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 553 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

PRATT, J.

The evidence established that the plaintiff was employed by," and rendered service to, the defendant, in procuring the adjustment of a loss. The only question as to which there can be any [1110]*1110doubt is as to the amount of compensation to which plaintiff is entitled. In respect to that question defendant has no ground of complaint. After various witnesses had testified too custom by which plaintiff would be entitled to 5 -per cent, upon the loss, as adjusted, the court refused to hear further evidence on that subject, and charged the jury that the recovery must be restricted to the reasonable value of the services. Defendant now claims that no proof was given of the “reasonable value” of the services, and that the verdict must' be set aside for that reason. Had that point been raised at the close of the testimony, it cannot be doubted that the omission to show, in express terms, the “reasonable value,” would have been obviated. It is plain that both court and counsel considered that proof of a custom to pay 5 per cent, was evidence which the jury might consider upon the question of “reasonable value.” In this "we find no error, and the verdict must be affirmed, with costs.

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

PRATT, J.

The evidence established that the plaintiff was employed by," and rendered service to, the defendant, in procuring the adjustment of a loss. The only question as to which there can be any [1110]*1110doubt is as to the amount of compensation to which plaintiff is entitled. In respect to that question defendant has no ground of complaint. After various witnesses had testified too custom by which plaintiff would be entitled to 5 -per cent, upon the loss, as adjusted, the court refused to hear further evidence on that subject, and charged the jury that the recovery must be restricted to the reasonable value of the services. Defendant now claims that no proof was given of the “reasonable value” of the services, and that the verdict must' be set aside for that reason. Had that point been raised at the close of the testimony, it cannot be doubted that the omission to show, in express terms, the “reasonable value,” would have been obviated. It is plain that both court and counsel considered that proof of a custom to pay 5 per cent, was evidence which the jury might consider upon the question of “reasonable value.” In this "we find no error, and the verdict must be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 N.Y.S. 1109, 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-citizens-gaslight-co-nysupct-1893.