Manhattan Savings Institution v. Gottfried Baking Co.

Majority

p. 398

Manhattan Savings Institution, Appellant, v. Gottfried Baking Company, Inc., Respondent.

Argued June 9, 1941;

decided July 29, 1941.

p. 399

John J. Cunneen for appellant.

The trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant because plaintiff was entitled at least to nominal damages. (Stevens v. Amsinck, 149 App. Div. 220 ; Hutton v. Tullis, 93 Misc. Rep. 548 ; Shapiro v. Benenson, 181 App. Div. 19 ; MacGregor v. Watts, 254 App. Div. 904 .)

Allan R. Campbell for respondent.

Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of nominal damages. (Matter of City of New York [Northern Blvd.], 270 N. Y. 652 ; Wells v. Fisher, 237 N. Y. 79 ; Baird v. Mayor, 96 N. Y. 567 ; Ruttonjee v. Frame, 237 N. Y. 115 ; Phelps-Stokes Estates v. Nixon, 222 N. Y. 93 ; National Cash Register Co. v. Schmidt, 48 App. Div. 472 ; Los Angeles I. S. Corp. v. Joslyn, 282 N. Y. 438 ; Stevens v. Breen, 283 N. Y. 196 ; Matter of Winters v. Prendergast, 211 N. Y. 536 ; Parsons v. Sutton, 66 N. Y. 92 ; Stecker v. Weaver Coal Co., 116 App. Div. 772 ; Haddam Granite Co. v. Brooklyn H. R. R. Co., 186 N. Y. 247 ; Bradford, E. & C. R. R. Co. v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 123 N. Y. 316 .)

The plaintiff proved that the defendant breached its contract. The question whether the plaintiff suffered substantial damages by such breach is one of fact, and the determination of that question against the plaintiff in the courts below may not be reviewed in this court. The plaintiff was, however, entitled as matter of law to an award of nominal damages.

The judgments should be reversed and judgment directed for the plaintiff for six cents damage, without costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.

Cases cited

Hutton v. Tullis 93 Misc. Rep. 548 N.Y. App. Term 1916-02-01 p. 399
In re City of New York 270 N. Y. 652 N.Y. 1936-04-14 p. 399
Wells v. Fisher 237 N. Y. 79 N.Y. 1923-11-20 p. 399
Baird v. Mayor 96 N. Y. 567 N.Y. 1884-10-07 p. 399
Ruttonjee v. Frame 237 N. Y. 115 N.Y. 1923-11-20 p. 399
Phelps-Stokes Estates, Inc. v. Nixon 222 N. Y. 93 N.Y. 1917-12-04 p. 399
Los Angeles Investment Securities Corp. v. Joslyn 282 N. Y. 438 N.Y. 1940-04-16 p. 399
Stevens v. Breen 283 N. Y. 196 N.Y. 1940-05-28 p. 399
Winters v. Prendergast 211 N. Y. 536 N.Y. 1914-04-28 p. 399
Parsons v. Sutton 66 N. Y. 92 N.Y. 1876-04-25 p. 399
Stecker v. Weaver Coal & Coke Co. 116 App. Div. 772 N.Y. App. Div. 1907-01-11 p. 399
Haddam Granite Co. v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad 186 N. Y. 247 N.Y. 1906-10-23 p. 399
Bradford, Eldred & Cuba Railroad v. New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad 123 N. Y. 316 N.Y. 1890-10-21 p. 399