Bellows & Hopkins v. Pearson

New York Supreme Court

Bellows & Hopkins v. Pearson

19 Johns. 172

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1821

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 19 Johns. 172 (Bellows & Hopkins v. Pearson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bellows & Hopkins v. Pearson, 19 Johns. 172 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1821).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have scrutinized the evidence, and see no ground for exemplary damages. The defendants have reason to complain that the damages are outrageously excessive. That the justice, who admitted that he was the son-in-law of the plaintiff, insisted on retaining jurisdiction, was, of itself, evidence, that the trial was not fair and impartial. The judgment ought, therefore, to be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We have scrutinized the evidence, and see no ground for exemplary damages. The defendants have reason to complain that the damages are outrageously excessive. That the justice, who admitted that he was the son-in-law of the plaintiff, insisted on retaining jurisdiction, was, of itself, evidence, that the trial was not fair and impartial. The judgment ought, therefore, to be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Johns. 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellows-hopkins-v-pearson-nysupct-1821.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack