Welch v. Livingston

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Welch v. Livingston

33 Misc. 116, 67 N.Y.S. 149

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 Misc. 116 (Welch v. Livingston) 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

Welch v. Livingston, 33 Misc. 116, 67 N.Y.S. 149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover for work, labor and services rendered by plaintiff to the defendants, and on conflicting evidence the jury found for the plaintiff. Although it appears a specific contract had been entered into between the parties the plaintiff was not confined to an action for damages for the breach thereof. Where a contract has been partially performed, and the defendants prevent the completion thereof, the aggrieved party may sue on a quantum meruit for the work done. Farron v. Sherwood, 17 E. Y. 227. As the items allowed for the expenses in returning the machine to Baltimore have not been incurred and are not reasonably certain to be incurred, they should have been withdrawn from the consideration of the jury.

The judgment will, therefore, be reduced to $171.79, and as modified, affirmed, without costs to either party.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegebich and O’Gobman, JJ.

Judgment reduced to $171.79, and as modified, affirmed, without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover for work, labor and services rendered by plaintiff to the defendants, and on conflicting evidence the jury found for the plaintiff. Although it appears a specific contract had been entered into between the parties the plaintiff was not confined to an action for damages for the breach thereof. Where a contract has been partially performed, and the defendants prevent the completion thereof, the aggrieved party may sue on a quantum meruit for the work done. Farron v. Sherwood, 17 E. Y. 227. As the items allowed for the expenses in returning the machine to Baltimore have not been incurred and are not reasonably certain to be incurred, they should have been withdrawn from the consideration of the jury.

The judgment will, therefore, be reduced to $171.79, and as modified, affirmed, without costs to either party.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegebich and O’Gobman, JJ.

Judgment reduced to $171.79, and as modified, affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Misc. 116, 67 N.Y.S. 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welch-v-livingston-nyappterm-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack