Pluemacher v. Bataille

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Pluemacher v. Bataille

25 Misc. 782, 56 N.Y.S. 1114

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 25 Misc. 782 (Pluemacher v. Bataille) 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

Pluemacher v. Bataille, 25 Misc. 782, 56 N.Y.S. 1114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The items for adjusting locks, $35; for hauling machinery, $6; for destruction of severed punch, $3, and for renting three punching machines, $10, were improperly allowed. The evidence shows that the agreement with respect to the locks was not performed, and the other items were either without support upon the proofs or not within the scope of the action which was brought to recover for work, labor and services. With these exceptions, however, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the court below. There was a serious conflict of evidence, which has been determined in favor of the plaintiff, and we cannot say that there was no reasonable basis for its support. The judgment must, therefore, be modified by deducting therefrom the items above mentioned, aggregating the sum of $54, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Judgment modified by deducting therefrom the sum of $54, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Gildebsleeve and Giegebich, JJ>

Judgment modified, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The items for adjusting locks, $35; for hauling machinery, $6; for destruction of severed punch, $3, and for renting three punching machines, $10, were improperly allowed. The evidence shows that the agreement with respect to the locks was not performed, and the other items were either without support upon the proofs or not within the scope of the action which was brought to recover for work, labor and services. With these exceptions, however, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the court below. There was a serious conflict of evidence, which has been determined in favor of the plaintiff, and we cannot say that there was no reasonable basis for its support. The judgment must, therefore, be modified by deducting therefrom the items above mentioned, aggregating the sum of $54, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Judgment modified by deducting therefrom the sum of $54, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Gildebsleeve and Giegebich, JJ>

Judgment modified, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Misc. 782, 56 N.Y.S. 1114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pluemacher-v-bataille-nyappterm-1899.