Sichel v. Baron
This text of 96 N.Y.S. 186 (Sichel v. Baron) 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.
Opinion
According to the return, the plaintiff brought this action to recover damages' for breach of contract, and upon a conflict of evidence the trial justice found “that defendant contracted to engage board and lodging for the season,” and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. This was not recovery on another cause than the one pleaded, notwithstanding the particulars referred to a lease by the plaintiff and failure to pay rental; for “the bill of particulars is not a part of the pleadings and cannot enlarge the cause of action.” Toplitz v. King Bridge Co., 20 Misc. Rep. 576, 580, 46 N. Y. Supp. 418.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
96 N.Y.S. 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sichel-v-baron-nyappterm-1905.