Case Name: ENRIGHT v. AMERICAN BELGIAN LAMP CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-01-17
Citations: 55 N.Y.S. 397
Docket Number: 
Parties: ENRIGHT v. AMERICAN BELGIAN LAMP CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 55
Pages: 397–401

Head Matter:
ENRIGHT v. AMERICAN BELGIAN LAMP CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
January 17, 1899.)
1. Contracts—Delay—Damages.
Where defendant, who had borrowed from plaintiff a large number of parts used in the manufacture of a lamp burner, owned the patents on a number of the parts, so that plaintiff could not sell the burners manufactured therefrom, the latter cannot recover special damages for delay in returning the borrowed parts.
2. Same—Evidence.
In an action for damages for failure to return parts of a lamp burner which defendant had borrowed to manufacture into burners, where the pleadings show that the burner as a whole was patented by defendant, evidence as to what parts were patented by him is admissible.
3. Appeal—Evidence—Grounds of Objection.
A ground for the exclusion of evidence not raised at the time of the objection to its admission will not be considered on appeal.
4. Patents—Best Evidence.
In an action for damages for delay in furnishing borrowed parts of an article to be manufactured, where the defense is that the parts were patented by defendant and therefore could not have been used by plaintiff if he had received them, plaintiff may he asked on cross-examination if the parts were not patented, without an introduction of the letters patent.
5 Contracts—Damages—Burden of Proof.
Where plaintiff claims special damages by reason of defendant’s delay in returning parts of lamp burners borrowed from him to he used in manufacturing the burners, the burden is on him to show that he could not have obtained the parts from other makers.
Goodrich, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term, Kings county.
Action by John Enright against the American Belgian ¡Lamp Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a motion tor a new trial, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
The appellant is the manufacturer of the “Belgian Lamp.” Certain parts of this lamp, which constitute the burner, were manufactured at Liege, Belgium, under Belgian patents, and the appellant is the sole American agent of the patentee for the sale of the burners. In 1894 a fire occurred in appellant’s establishment, and thereafter the respondent purchased a large quantity of parts of the lamp and burner at an auction sale made by the underwriters upon the burned stock. The parts so purchased were complete, and suitable for assembling and putting together to make complete burners. In August, 3894, and at various times thereafter up to January 10, 1895, the appellant borrowed from the respondent certain of the parts of burners. The allegations of the complaint are that the appellant agreed to return the articles borrowed upon demand; that it was the purpose of the respondent to use the articles borrowed in the manufacture and sale of lamps, and that this purpose was communicated to the appellant; that demand was made for return of the borrowed articles and refused, and that the respondent had thereby been prevented from realizing a profit of about one dollar per lamp which he would have made upon the sale of the manufactured article. Upon the trial there was a verdict in favor of the respondent for §2,000, which the court reduced to §1,700. A motion for a new trial was made, and denied upon the judge’s minutes, and, judgment having been entered, this appeal is taken from the judgment and from the order.
Argued before GOODRICH, P.. J., and GULDEN, BARTLETT, HATCH, and WOODWARD, JJ.
Charles F. Brown (J. Stewart Ross, on the brief), for appellant.
K. C. McDonald, for respondent.

Opinion:
WILLARD BARTLETT, J.
The main question in this case is whether the plaintiff really suffered any damage by reason of the defendant's failure seasonably to return the burners and parts of burners which it had borrowed, and the answer to this question depended largely upon the use which the plaintiff would have been able to make of these articles if they had been duly returned to him. If they were covered by a patent so as to be practically unavailable for sale in his hands, he could have suffered no damage by reason of the action of the defendant in withholding them, save the actual value of the material which entered into their composition. For this reason it seems to me that it was clearly erroneous for the court to hold, as it did during the cross-examination of the plaintiff, that it would not permit the defendant to prove what parts of the lamp were covered by a patent belonging to the Belgian Lamp Company or controlled by that corporation. The error was repeated during the direct examination of the secretary and manager of the defendant. It is sought to sustain the exclusion of this exldence on the ground that the pleadings presented no issue as to the parts of the lamp which were or were not patented, and, furthermore, that the record does not disclose the character of the proof which was offered to establish the existence of the patent, and does not show that the letters patent themselves were produced in court. The complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that the lamp burners in controversy were patented articles. This allegation and admission evidently applied to each burner considered as a whole, but had no reference to the component parts. As to such parts it was not necessary that there should be any averment in the pleadings. The question whether any particular part was patented or not was important solely as bearing upon the measure of damages, and the evidence was admissible in that view, even though nothing was said on the subject in the pleadings. As to the nonproduction of the letters patent, the objection to the proposed proof was not based on that ground; and, even if it had been, I think that it was competent to prove, by the cross- examination of the plaintiff, the fact, if it were a fact, that he knew the articles to be patented. I am unable, therefore, to agree with the learned presiding justice that no error was committed in excluding the evidence which the defendant sought to introduce for the purpose of showing precisely what parts of the Belgian lamp were patented, and to show that the Belgian Lamp Company was the patentee thereof. On the contrary, I think it was an error which requires a reversal of the judgment. All concur, except GOODRICH, P. J., dissenting.