Sergent v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurace

New York Supreme Court

Sergent v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurace

28 N.Y.S. 1123, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 887

DecidedMay 18, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 28 N.Y.S. 1123 (Sergent v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sergent v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurace, 28 N.Y.S. 1123, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 887 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We are of the opinion that the evidence was insufficient to show that Shieve had authority from the defendant to adjust the plaintiff’s loss; that there was no such adjustment of his loss as authorized the court in holding that, if the plaintiff was entitled to recover, he was entitled to the amount stated in the list or account made by Shieve; and that the court erred in excluding the evidence offered by the defendant as to the value of the property destroyed. Without discussing the other questions presented on this appeal, we think the judgment must be reversed for the error already pointed out. This conclusion renders it unnecessary to examine the question as to the validity or propriety of the order granting the plaintiff an extra allowance. Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

We are of the opinion that the evidence was insufficient to show that Shieve had authority from the defendant to adjust the plaintiff’s loss; that there was no such adjustment of his loss as authorized the court in holding that, if the plaintiff was entitled to recover, he was entitled to the amount stated in the list or account made by Shieve; and that the court erred in excluding the evidence offered by the defendant as to the value of the property destroyed. Without discussing the other questions presented on this appeal, we think the judgment must be reversed for the error already pointed out. This conclusion renders it unnecessary to examine the question as to the validity or propriety of the order granting the plaintiff an extra allowance. Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.Y.S. 1123, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sergent-v-liverpool-london-globe-insurace-nysupct-1894.