New York Court of Common Pleas, 1892

Dunne v. Young

Dunne v. Young
New York Court of Common Pleas · Decided January 4, 1892
16 N.Y.S. 957; 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 956; 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 654 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

C. & A. Kenneson, for appellant. F. Higley, for respondent.

Dunne v. Young

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

This action was brought upon a written contract, and of course the burden of showing the fulfillment of it according to its terms was upon the plaintiff. The defense relied upon was that the plaintiff neglected the business, was incompetent to do the work which he undertook to do, and that it became necessary for the defendant to hire another man to do part of his work. It is true that the plaintiff contradicts this testimony upon these points, but this makes it a question of conflict of evidence merely; and, as there is enough to sustain the finding of the court below upon these questions, we think the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.