Bellows & Hopkins v. Pearson

New York Supreme Court

Bellows & Hopkins v. Pearson

19 Johns. 172

New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1821·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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.

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

Pincite

19 Johns. 172 (Bellows & Hopkins v. Pearson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related