Fowler v. Moller
The Superior Court of New York City
The case came before the Court upon an appeal from a judgment entered upon the decision of Philo T. Ruggles, Esq., as referee.
Read the full summary
The case came before the Court upon an appeal from a judgment entered upon the decision of Philo T. Ruggles, Esq., as referee. He found that there was nothing due from the defendant to the plaintiff; but, on the contrary, that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant in the sum of $5.14. Judgment for the defendant was entered upon his decision for that amount, with costs, being, in the whole, $85.69. The plaintiff demanded in his complaint the value of a rosewood sofa, alleged to be reasonably worth $95, and of a walnut centre table, alleged to be reasonably worth $55, delivered to the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court—Hoffman, J.
By whatever rule the referee proceeded in his estimate, it is indisputable that he included the arrears due by the son with the value, at the rate of the lease, of the father’s occupation. It is clear that he did not mean to estimate the actual occupation as worth $145.14, as if there had been no arrears.
The answer alleges, by way of counterclaim, an indebtedness of the plaintiff to the defendant, in at least $150, for the use and occupation of the store, and as the tenant and lessee of the defendant. The referee follows this allegation in his finding.
He does not find…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Van Alstine v. WimpleNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Mallory v. GillettNew York Supreme Court · 1857