Welch v. Livingston

33 Misc. 116, 67 N.Y.S. 149
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided November 15, 1900·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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the machine to Baltimore have not been incurred and are not reasonably certain to be incurred, they should have been withdrawn from the consideration of the jury.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

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

33 Misc. 116 (Welch v. Livingston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weiser v. Stadium of Canarsie
137 Misc. 881 (New York Supreme Court, 1930)