Hyperlawhypertext legal database H. G. Vogel Co. v. Lockport Glass Co. 118 N.Y.S. 351

← Cases

H. G. Vogel Co. v. Lockport Glass Co.

118 N.Y.S. 351 Court January Term, 1909.) English

Delivered by BROWN, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 351
H. G. VOGEL CO. v. LOCKPORT GLASS CO.
(Supreme Court, Trial Term, Niagara County.
January Term, 1909.)

Headnote

Interest (§ 19[1] )—Unliquidated Demand.
Plaintiff is not entitled to interest, where his claim is liquidated by . the jury by deducting from his claim a claim of defendant for damages, established by the jury at a certain amount.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Interest, Cent. Dig. §§ 35-40; Dec. Dig. § 19.[1] ]
Action by the H. G. Vogel Company against the Lockport Glass Company. Defendant moves for a new trial and to correct verdict.
Verdict corrected.
David Tice, for the motion.
David Bernstein, opposed.

The plaintiff’s claim of $1,777.34 was reduced by the jury in a substantial amount. The damages claimed by defendant were established by the jury to be $656.01. The plaintiff’s claim was liquidated by the jury by deducting defendant’s damages at $1,131.33. The jury were charged to add interest to balance found due plaintiff for six years at 6 per cent. This interest on $1,131.33 is the sum of $403.-67; the verdict being for $1,131.33, principal, and $403.67, interest, a total of $1,535. It was error to direct jury to add interest. The plaintiff was not entitled to interest. The verdict must be reduced to $1,131.33. Excelsior Terra Cotta Co. v. Harde, 181 N. Y. 11 , 73 N. E. 494 , 106 Am. St. Rep. 493 ; Delafield v. Westfield, 41 App. Div. 24 , 58 N. Y. Supp. 277 .

An order may be.entered, correcting the verdict by reducing the sum to $1,131.33, and denying defendant^ motion for a new trial.

Cases cited