Pihlman v. Connery

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Pihlman v. Connery

111 N.Y.S. 654

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 30, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 111 N.Y.S. 654 (Pihlman v. Connery) 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

Pihlman v. Connery, 111 N.Y.S. 654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff sued for a balance of $138.69 alleged to be due him for services rendered and materials furnished at the request of the defendant. That this balance was due the plaintiff, from the defendant was admitted upon the trial. The defendant pleaded a counterclaim for damages, which he alleged resulted to him from the negligent manner in which the plaintiff performed his contract. The trial court allowed the defendant a part of his counterclaim, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff for $51.10. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals to this court.

There was no evidence to show the damage which the defendant claims resulted to him from the negligent manner in which the plaintiff performed his work. Against the, objection and over the exception of the attorney for the plaintiff, the defendant was allowed to state his conclusion or general estimate as to the damage which he claimed he sustained. This was not competent evidence, and the trial court should not have permitted the conclusion of the defendant to be substituted in lieu of legal evidence.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff sued for a balance of $138.69 alleged to be due him for services rendered and materials furnished at the request of the defendant. That this balance was due the plaintiff, from the defendant was admitted upon the trial. The defendant pleaded a counterclaim for damages, which he alleged resulted to him from the negligent manner in which the plaintiff performed his contract. The trial court allowed the defendant a part of his counterclaim, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff for $51.10. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals to this court.

There was no evidence to show the damage which the defendant claims resulted to him from the negligent manner in which the plaintiff performed his work. Against the, objection and over the exception of the attorney for the plaintiff, the defendant was allowed to state his conclusion or general estimate as to the damage which he claimed he sustained. This was not competent evidence, and the trial court should not have permitted the conclusion of the defendant to be substituted in lieu of legal evidence.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 N.Y.S. 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pihlman-v-connery-nyappterm-1908.