Whelan v. . Ansonia Clock Company

97 N.Y. 293, 1884 N.Y. LEXIS 173
New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 25, 1884·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It matters not whether the relation of master and servant existed between these parties, or whether the plaintiff was a contractor with the defendant to do the work upon the clocks. Upon the authority of the case of Niblo v. Binsse (3 Abb. Ct, App. Dec. 375), the defendant was liable for the work done, as the clocks belonged to it, were in its possession and under its control, and it was under an implied obligation to furnish and keep them on hand that the plaintiff could complete his work upon them and thus earn his compensation.

The judgment should be affirmed.

All concur, except Rapallo, J., absent.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Whelan v. . Ansonia Clock Company, 97 N.Y. 293, 1884 N.Y. LEXIS 173 (N.Y. 1884).

97 N.Y. 293 (Whelan v. . Ansonia Clock Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Taulbee v. McCarty
137 S.W. 1045 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1911)
Young v. City of Chicopee
72 N.E. 63 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Rhodes v. Hinds
79 A.D. 379 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
Hayes v. Gross
9 A.D. 12 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Wolfe v. Horn
33 N.Y.S. 173 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1895)
Purdy v. Nova Scotia Midland Ry. & I. Co.
32 N.Y.S. 157 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1895)
Strack v. Hurd
16 N.Y.S. 566 (New York Supreme Court, 1891)