TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Universal Taximeter Cab Co. v. Blumenthal

Universal Taximeter Cab Co. v. Blumenthal, 143 N.Y.S. 1056 (1913)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 13, 1913
Judges
Guy
Citations
143 N.Y.S. 1056
Headnotes
Damages (§ 113*)—Injuries—Machine—Loss of Usable Value. In an action for injuries to plaintiff’s motor cab in a collision with defendant’s furniture van, the measure of damages for loss of usable value of plaintiff’s machine was the cost of hiring such a machine in the market for the period while plaintiff was deprived of the use of the machine; the evidence of the profits derived from use thereof béing incompetent. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Damages, Cent. Dig. §§ 279, 280; Dec. Dig. § 113.*]
Summary
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District. Action by the Universal Taximeter Cab Company against Ben Blumenthal, doing business under the name of the West End Storage Company. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Guy

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

GUY, J.

This action was brought to recover for damages to plaintiff’s motor cab, caused by a collision' with a furniture Van belonging to defendant. Plaintiff made out a;good cause of action, but failed.to introduce proper proof of damage. The true measure of damage for loss of usable value of plaintiff’s machine wtiüld be the cost of hiring such a machine in the market for the period during which plaintiff was deprived of the use of his machine. In the absence of proof that such a machine could not be hired in the market at that time, the evidence of the profits derived by plaintiff from the use of his machine w.as incompetent, and its admission constituted reversible error.

The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1914: 11915: 11921: 11948: 119142026peak 1914 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Perkins v. Brown132 Tenn. 294 (1915)
  2. Meyers v. Bradford201 P. 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)
  3. Cook v. Packard Motor Car Co.92 A. 413 (Conn. 1914) · Dissent
  4. Wilson & Co. v. Sims34 So. 2d 689 (Ala. 1948)

Most recent

  1. Wilson & Co. v. Sims34 So. 2d 689 (Ala. 1948)
  2. Meyers v. Bradford201 P. 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)
  3. Perkins v. Brown132 Tenn. 294 (1915)
  4. Cook v. Packard Motor Car Co.92 A. 413 (Conn. 1914) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list