Bigelow Co. v. Gray

New York Court of Common Pleas

Bigelow Co. v. Gray

14 N.Y. St. Rep. 711

DecidedFebruary 6, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 14 N.Y. St. Rep. 711 (Bigelow Co. v. Gray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bigelow Co. v. Gray, 14 N.Y. St. Rep. 711 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The application for an adjournment of the

trial in the court below was addressed to the discretion of the trial justice. Whether that discretion was properly exercised, may be reviewed by the general term of that court but cannot be reviewed in this. Wakefield v. American Surety Co., 13 Daly, 349; Walsh v. Schulz, 12 id., 108; McEteere v. Little, 8 id., 167; Schwartz v. Oppold, 74 N. Y., 307. And for the same reasons this court cannot reverse the judgment, because it'is against the weight of evidence—there being some evidence on which the jury could find as it did.

The answer did not allege that the cylinder which plaintiff was to construct was made of material differing from that called for by the contract, or that it was of less value in consequence; nor was any motion made by the defendant to conform the pleadings to the proof; and the jury seem to have allowed him something for this difference in value.

The exceptions to the admission of evidence, we have examined, and do not think there was any error committed in this respect which would, in any way, have affected the verdict to defendant’s injury.

. The judgment should be affirmed with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The application for an adjournment of the

trial in the court below was addressed to the discretion of the trial justice. Whether that discretion was properly exercised, may be reviewed by the general term of that court but cannot be reviewed in this. Wakefield v. American Surety Co., 13 Daly, 349; Walsh v. Schulz, 12 id., 108; McEteere v. Little, 8 id., 167; Schwartz v. Oppold, 74 N. Y., 307. And for the same reasons this court cannot reverse the judgment, because it'is against the weight of evidence—there being some evidence on which the jury could find as it did.

The answer did not allege that the cylinder which plaintiff was to construct was made of material differing from that called for by the contract, or that it was of less value in consequence; nor was any motion made by the defendant to conform the pleadings to the proof; and the jury seem to have allowed him something for this difference in value.

The exceptions to the admission of evidence, we have examined, and do not think there was any error committed in this respect which would, in any way, have affected the verdict to defendant’s injury.

. The judgment should be affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.Y. St. Rep. 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bigelow-co-v-gray-nyctcompl-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack