Plewes v. Philadelphia Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Plewes v. Philadelphia Casualty Co.

87 N.Y.S. 1146

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 87 N.Y.S. 1146 (Plewes v. Philadelphia Casualty Co.) 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

Plewes v. Philadelphia Casualty Co., 87 N.Y.S. 1146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Held, that while the complaint contains some allegations appropriate only in an action upon contract for services, yet it contains all the allegations necessary to constitute a cause of action for damages for breach of the contract. The cause of action may be regarded by this court as one for damages,- and the other allegations disregarded as surplusage. The amount of the recovery under the evidence would be practically the same in either form of action. The distinction between the two, under the facts of this case, is technical rather than real.

McLENNAN, P. J., dissents, upon the ground that the sole cause of action alleged in the complaint is for services rendered, and the evidence wholly fails to establish it, but only tends to prove a cause of action for damages for a breach of a contract of employment, and therefore, under the authorities, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, 19 Am. Rep. 285; Weed v. Burt, 78 N. Y. 191; Perry v. Dickerson, 85 N. Y. 345, 39 Am. Rep. 663; Dexter v. Ivins, 133 N. Y. 551, 30 N. E. 594.

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

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Held, that while the complaint contains some allegations appropriate only in an action upon contract for services, yet it contains all the allegations necessary to constitute a cause of action for damages for breach of the contract. The cause of action may be regarded by this court as one for damages,- and the other allegations disregarded as surplusage. The amount of the recovery under the evidence would be practically the same in either form of action. The distinction between the two, under the facts of this case, is technical rather than real.

McLENNAN, P. J., dissents, upon the ground that the sole cause of action alleged in the complaint is for services rendered, and the evidence wholly fails to establish it, but only tends to prove a cause of action for damages for a breach of a contract of employment, and therefore, under the authorities, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, 19 Am. Rep. 285; Weed v. Burt, 78 N. Y. 191; Perry v. Dickerson, 85 N. Y. 345, 39 Am. Rep. 663; Dexter v. Ivins, 133 N. Y. 551, 30 N. E. 594.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 N.Y.S. 1146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plewes-v-philadelphia-casualty-co-nyappdiv-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack