Sling v. Central Union Gas Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Sling v. Central Union Gas Co.

144 N.Y.S. 740

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 16, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 144 N.Y.S. 740 (Sling v. Central Union Gas 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

Sling v. Central Union Gas Co., 144 N.Y.S. 740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiffs sued defendant for a trespass committed by one of its agents in entering upon the plaintiffs’ premises and shutting off the gas. While such action was not justified because of nonpayment of bills for gas, it was warranted by plaintiffs’ refusal to make a reasonable deposit, as requested by defendant, to secure the amount of gas “required or proposed to be used for two calendar months.” Plaintiffs made an original deposit of $25, and when, in the course of some six months, it developed that their bills ran from $20 to $30 a month, the defendant twice demanded an additional deposit of $24, which plaintiffs refused to make. Under sections 63 and 65 of the Transportation Corporations Law, the defendant was justified in shutting off the gas. See, also, Ford v. Brooklyn Gas Light Co., 3 Hun, 621.

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

GUY, J., concurs. SEABURY, J., dissents.

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

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiffs sued defendant for a trespass committed by one of its agents in entering upon the plaintiffs’ premises and shutting off the gas. While such action was not justified because of nonpayment of bills for gas, it was warranted by plaintiffs’ refusal to make a reasonable deposit, as requested by defendant, to secure the amount of gas “required or proposed to be used for two calendar months.” Plaintiffs made an original deposit of $25, and when, in the course of some six months, it developed that their bills ran from $20 to $30 a month, the defendant twice demanded an additional deposit of $24, which plaintiffs refused to make. Under sections 63 and 65 of the Transportation Corporations Law, the defendant was justified in shutting off the gas. See, also, Ford v. Brooklyn Gas Light Co., 3 Hun, 621.

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

GUY, J., concurs. SEABURY, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 N.Y.S. 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sling-v-central-union-gas-co-nyappterm-1913.