Ross v. New Endicott Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ross v. New Endicott Co.

50 Misc. 650, 98 N.Y.S. 758

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 Misc. 650 (Ross v. New Endicott 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

Ross v. New Endicott Co., 50 Misc. 650, 98 N.Y.S. 758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Scott, J.

Plaintiff sues for $97 claimed to be due for work performed at defendant’s hotel. He was employed by defendant’s chief engineer, and the only question litigated, or sought to be litigated, by defendant was the engineer’s authority to employ plaintiff. If the engineer was vested with authority to make the employment, the plaintiff was entitled under the evidence to the amount for which he sued. For some reason, not apparent upon the record, the learned justice, while finding in plaintiff’s favor upon the question of employment, gave him judgment for exactly one-half of his claim. The defendant does not appeal and we are, therefore, not called upon to consider its exceptions, nor to [651]*651examine the question whether or not the defendant’s engineer had the extent of authority claimed for him. On plaintiff’s appeal, however, we must reverse the judgment for inadequacy and inconsistency. If the plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, he was entitled to all he sued for. Since the court had found that he was entitled to recover something, • it was error to cut his claim in two.

Teuax and Bischoee, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Scott, J.

Plaintiff sues for $97 claimed to be due for work performed at defendant’s hotel. He was employed by defendant’s chief engineer, and the only question litigated, or sought to be litigated, by defendant was the engineer’s authority to employ plaintiff. If the engineer was vested with authority to make the employment, the plaintiff was entitled under the evidence to the amount for which he sued. For some reason, not apparent upon the record, the learned justice, while finding in plaintiff’s favor upon the question of employment, gave him judgment for exactly one-half of his claim. The defendant does not appeal and we are, therefore, not called upon to consider its exceptions, nor to [651]*651examine the question whether or not the defendant’s engineer had the extent of authority claimed for him. On plaintiff’s appeal, however, we must reverse the judgment for inadequacy and inconsistency. If the plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, he was entitled to all he sued for. Since the court had found that he was entitled to recover something, • it was error to cut his claim in two.

Teuax and Bischoee, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Misc. 650, 98 N.Y.S. 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-new-endicott-co-nyappterm-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack