Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Hilt. 414

Badger v. Benedict

New York Court of Common Pleas

Decided August 15, 1857

New York Court of Common Pleas · decided 1857-08-15

The complaint alleged that about January 1st, 1854, the plaintiff made a contract with the defendant, whereby the defendant agreed to furnish paper for, and to print and bind for Me plaintiff, within thirty days, 2,000 copies of a book of memoirs, for the price and at the rate of $271 for each thousand copies, payable at three months from the completion of the work.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1893

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-08-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

IN graham, First Judge. —

¶1The demurrer only states one ground for demurring, viz.: that, in tbe complaint, several causes of action are improperly joined together. All tbe causes of action stated in the complaint arise o.ut of one transaction, viz.: for printing a book for the plaintiff, from stereotype plates furnished by her.

¶2Tbe complaint sets out tbe contract and the payment of money on account of it; that tbe defendant neglected to perform bis contract, suffered tbe plates to be destroyed, and thereby exposed tbe plaintiff to loss and damage.

¶3There is nothing in this complaint but what may be said to be founded on contract. Tbe defendant was bound by bis agreement to print tbe book, to take care of the plates, and to return them to tbe owner; and when be violated all or any of these obligations, be violated tbe contract. It does not follow, because the plaintiff might have instituted an action for the tort occasioned by the defendant’s negligence, that she may not, if she so elects, seek her redress in an action upon the implied con tract. She may elect either, and is not confined to tbe remedy for the tort. These causes of action all arise out of one transaction, and may all be said to be founded on the contract. The 167th section of tbe Code allows them to be united together.

¶4*420It is unnecessary to decide whether an omission to state causes of action separately is a ground of demurrer, because no such ground is stated in the demurrer in this case, and is not, therefore, available. Sect. 145.

¶5Order at special term affirmed, with costs.

/1/hilt/414 · .json · Public domain