Spigel v. Gumenick

D.C. Circuit

Spigel v. Gumenick

141 F.2d 19, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 361, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3587

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 28, 1944

DocketNo. 8497

StatusPublished

This text of 141 F.2d 19 (Spigel v. Gumenick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Spigel v. Gumenick, 141 F.2d 19, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 361, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3587 (D.C. Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee sued appellant for breach of an alleged contract by which appellant agreed to pay appellee $3,500 for superintending the construction of a building. Appellant paid appellee $1,200 and discharged him while the construction was going on. No evidence was offered by either side as to whether or not appellee obtained, tried to obtain, or could have obtained other employment between the time of his discharge and the time when the building was completed. The verdict and judgment were for the full amount of the claim, $2,300. Appellant urges that an allowance should have been made on account of sums which appellee might have earned in mitigation of damages. While it does not appear that the court gave the jury any instruction on that subject, neither does it appear that appellant asked for any. Appellant’s counsel assured the court that he was satisfied with the in: structions given. It is now too late to complain that they were insufficient. We need not consider what instruction on the subject, if any, the court should have given on request. Appellant’s other contentions are also without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee sued appellant for breach of an alleged contract by which appellant agreed to pay appellee $3,500 for superintending the construction of a building. Appellant paid appellee $1,200 and discharged him while the construction was going on. No evidence was offered by either side as to whether or not appellee obtained, tried to obtain, or could have obtained other employment between the time of his discharge and the time when the building was completed. The verdict and judgment were for the full amount of the claim, $2,300. Appellant urges that an allowance should have been made on account of sums which appellee might have earned in mitigation of damages. While it does not appear that the court gave the jury any instruction on that subject, neither does it appear that appellant asked for any. Appellant’s counsel assured the court that he was satisfied with the in: structions given. It is now too late to complain that they were insufficient. We need not consider what instruction on the subject, if any, the court should have given on request. Appellant’s other contentions are also without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 F.2d 19, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 361, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spigel-v-gumenick-cadc-1944.