Case ID: ny_54/html/0686-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lott, Ch. C.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Horace Tuttle et al., Respondents, v. Patrick Hannegan, Appellant.
    (Submitted September 22, 1873;
    decided January term, 1874.)
    This was an action to recover damages for the breach of an agreement upon the part of defendant, that he would not supply or furnish milk, for three years, to his customers upon a certain route, the good-will of which he sold to plaintiffs. The only questions presented were as to the,reception and rejection of evidence. Plaintiffs offered in evidence a written instrument, executed by defendant in the form of a bond, but not under seal, in the penalty of $1,000, setting forth the agreement, and conditioned that upon full performance by defendant the same should be void. This was objected to on the ground that plaintiffs should have brought their action thereon. The objection was overruled. Held, no error; that it was sufficient for plaintiffs to allege the contract and breach without any specification of the evidence thereof.
    Defendant offered to prove the sale of the route by plaintiffs after the expiration of the three years, and what they received therefor, which was excluded. Held, no error; that the evidence had no bearing or relevancy either as to the value of the route if it had not been interfered with, or the loss resulting from such interference.
    
      D. McMahon for the appellant.
    
      E. S. Schenck for the respondents.
   Lott, Ch. C.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.