Biggs v. Schultz

New York Supreme Court

Biggs v. Schultz

5 N.Y. St. Rep. 56

DecidedDecember 14, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 5 N.Y. St. Rep. 56 (Biggs v. Schultz) 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

Biggs v. Schultz, 5 N.Y. St. Rep. 56 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman J.

This is an action for false imprisonment, and [58]*58the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for one thousand dollars. The defendants have appealed and seek a reversal of the judgment, solely because the verdict was excessive.

The cause of action was fully disclosed on the trial and the jury was instructed upon the question of damages, and there was neither misapprehension nor mistake.

Although the verdict may be larger than we would make it, yet we cannot say it was excessive. We cannot say that its size shows, or evinces passion or prejudice, and so we cannot tear it down.

The judgment and order denying the motion for new trial should be affirmed with costs.

Barnard P. J. and Pratt, J., concur.

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

Dykman J.

This is an action for false imprisonment, and [58]*58the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for one thousand dollars. The defendants have appealed and seek a reversal of the judgment, solely because the verdict was excessive.

The cause of action was fully disclosed on the trial and the jury was instructed upon the question of damages, and there was neither misapprehension nor mistake.

Although the verdict may be larger than we would make it, yet we cannot say it was excessive. We cannot say that its size shows, or evinces passion or prejudice, and so we cannot tear it down.

The judgment and order denying the motion for new trial should be affirmed with costs.

Barnard P. J. and Pratt, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 N.Y. St. Rep. 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biggs-v-schultz-nysupct-1886.