Pierce v. Tuttle
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant, and an order denying a new trial. The facts appear in the opinion. cited Pierce v. Tuttle, 53 Barb. 155; Van Deusen v. Young, 29 N. Y. 9, 30, 31; Suffern v. Townsend, 9 Johns. 35; 7 Conn. 232; McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 114; 2 Hill. on Torts, 148; 2 Greenl.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant, and an order denying a new trial. The facts appear in the opinion. cited Pierce v. Tuttle, 53 Barb. 155; Van Deusen v. Young, 29 N. Y. 9, 30, 31; Suffern v. Townsend, 9 Johns. 35; 7 Conn. 232; McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 114; 2 Hill. on Torts, 148; 2 Greenl. Ev., §§ 625, 653; id., § 332. cited Walsh v. Kelly, 40 N. Y. 556; Magee v. Badger, 34 id. 247; Ingersoll v. Bostweck, 22 id. 425; A D. Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 3 Keyes, 444; Myers v. Baker, 14 N. Y. 435; Woodruff v. McGrath, 32 id. 255; Hunt v. Fish, 4 Barb. 329; Cook v. Litchfield, 2 Bosw.…
1Opinion of the CourtE. D. Smith, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant and an order denying a new trial.
The action was for injuries to plaintiff’s farm, arising from the neglect of the defendant to exercise ordinary care in its management, and injuries to it while the same was in his possession. It appears that the defendant entered into- possession of the farm in April, 1867, under a contract of purchase which, for some reason, was not carried into effect, and the plaintiff soon after brought ejectment for the said premises, in which action he finally recovered with damages for the use and occupation…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hotchkiss v. Auburn & Rochester Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1862