Ryan v. PENN JERSEY BOILER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

360 A.2d 62
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedJune 1, 1976
Docket159-75
StatusPublished

This text of 360 A.2d 62 (Ryan v. PENN JERSEY BOILER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ryan v. PENN JERSEY BOILER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 360 A.2d 62 (Vt. 1976).

Opinion

360 A.2d 62 (1976)

Francis P. RYAN d/b/a Chelsea Rigging
v.
PENN JERSEY BOILER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

No. 159-75.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

June 1, 1976.

Reginald T. Abare, Barre, for plaintiff.

*63 Monte & Monte, Barre, for defendant.

Before BARNEY, C. J., and SMITH, DALEY, LARROW and BILLINGS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

At issue in this civil action is a claim made by the plaintiff for services rendered to the defendant. The defendant counterclaimed alleging, among other matters, that the plaintiff unlawfully deprived it of a certain piece of its equipment for a period of four months. In a trial by court without jury, the court found in favor of the plaintiff, less the amount of damage found to have been sustained by the defendant for the loss of equipment use. The amount of the credit was $2,000.00. It is from this credit in favor of the defendant that the plaintiff appeals.

Although the evidence introduced on the issue was conflicting, the court found that the plaintiff's detention of the defendant's equipment was unauthorized. As compensation for the detention, the court credited the defendant with approximately one-half of the damages allowable under the evidence. The defendant, however, has taken no appeal from the judgment. We therefore do not consider the arguments now raised in its brief.

As to the plaintiff's claim that no credit at all should be allowed, we disagree. The credit of $2,000.00 for the loss of use is supported in fact and in law and was less than the total damages awardable under the evidence presented by the defendant. No prejudice to the plaintiff having been demonstrated as the findings are fairly and reasonably supported by the evidence, the entry will be judgment affirmed. See Seaway Shopping Center Corp. v. Grand Union Stores, Inc., 132 Vt. 111, 315 A.2d 483 (1974).

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Seaway Shopping Center Corp. v. Grand Union Stores, Inc.
315 A.2d 483 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1974)
Ryan v. Penn Jersey Boiler Construction Co.
360 A.2d 62 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
360 A.2d 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-penn-jersey-boiler-construction-company-vt-1976.