Case ID: misc_191/html/0678-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harry M. Tarr, Respondent, v. Seekonk Corporation, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    April 1, 1948.
    
      Arthur M. Boal for appellant.
    
      Robert Mishkin and Richard M. Cantor for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff may not recover in an action for maintenance and cure for items included in a recovery in his action for full indemnity (Krey v. United States, 123 F. 2d 1008). The record of the trial does not disclose whether the item of wages for which a recovery was had in the indemnity action is identical with the item of maintenance in the present case.

The judgment should be reversed and new trial ordered* with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event.

Hammer, Church and Eder, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.