Case ID: nys_69/html/0417-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LUDWIG v. INGELFINGER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    March 27, 1901.)
    Evidence—Counterclaim—Services Rendered—Proof of Value—Admis SIGNS.
    Where the plaintiff sued for a loan of $50, and defendant counterclaimed for $125 for services rendered, but no proof as to the value of which was offered, and plaintiff testified that he had paid for all services rendered by defendant, and others testified that defendant admitted the indebtedness of the plaintiff, a judgment on the counterclaim for $75 was against the evidence.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Brooklyn.
    Action by Henry Ludwig against Mary Ingelfinger. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and WOODWARD, HIRSOHBERG, JERKS, and SEWELL, JJ.
    William F. Hagarty, for appellant.
    John T. Robinson, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff sues to recover a loan of $50. The receipt of $50 is admitted, but the contention of the defendant is that it must be credited upon her counterclaim of $125 against the plaintiff for defendant’s services as a domestic servant. The municipal court gave judgment-for $75 for the defendant upon the counterclaim. We think that the judgment must be reversed. There was no evidence of the value of the defendant’s services. It seems hardly credible that the defendant would work for years without pay. The plaintiff testifies that he had paid the defendant for all that she ever did in his service. The sister of the plaintiff and another witness testify that the defendant admitted the indebtedness in question.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.