Westervelt v. Agrumaria Sicula Societa Anonima di Trasporti Marittimi
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, New York county. Action by William II. Westervelt and others against the Agrumaría Sicula Societa Anónima di Trasporti Marittimi to recover damages for breach of contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from special term, New York county. Action by William II. Westervelt and others against the Agrumaría Sicula Societa Anónima di Trasporti Marittimi to recover damages for breach of contract. There was an order denying defendant’s motion to vacate a warrant of attachment, the motion having been made on the papers whereon the warrant was granted; the affidavit being as follows: “Otto W. P. Westervelt, being duly sworn, says: ‘ I am one of the plaintiffs herein, and a member of the firm •of W. H. Westervelt & Co., whose principal place of business is at 24 State street, in the city of New…
1Opinion of the CourtVan Brunt, P. J.
We think that the motion should have been granted. There are no facts set up in the affidavits upon which the attachment was granted from which the court can judge what amount, if any, of damages have been sustained by the plaintiff. In an action upon contract for the payment of a sum certain, it appears from the contract itself what the damages will be. In an action, however, for unliquidated damages, it depends upon the facts of the case as to whether the plaintiff has sustained merely nominal or real damage. A cause of action may be completely set forth where only nominal damages can be…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Carrier v. United Paper Co.New York Supreme Court · 1893
- Sulzbacher v. J. Cawthra & Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1895
- Spies v. MunroeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Farquhar v. Wisconsin Condensed Milk Co.New York Supreme Court · 1900
- Duryea, Watts & Co. v. RaynerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1895
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.