Bini v. . Smith

55 N.E. 395, 161 N.Y. 120, 15 E.H. Smith 120, 1899 N.Y. LEXIS 932
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 28, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 N.E. 395 (Bini v. . Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bini v. . Smith, 55 N.E. 395, 161 N.Y. 120, 15 E.H. Smith 120, 1899 N.Y. LEXIS 932 (N.Y. 1899).

Opinion

Haight, J.

This action was brought upon a policy of insurance. The defense was based chiefly upon the ground that the policy was issued without the authority of the defendant and without consideration. The trial court found as a fact *122 that the policy was procured and delivered to the plaintiff by one Alden, an insurance broker; that he was the agent of the plaintiff and not of the defendant, and that the premium paid to him was never turned over to the manager of the defendant. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, both upon the law and upon the facts, and granted a new trial.

This court has repeatedly held that, where the Appellate Division reverses upon the facts and grants a new trial, it has no jurisdiction to review the order. It is true that the Appellate Division cannot create a question of fact by declaring that there is one, nor, by assuming to reverse on the facts, reverse a determination that does not involve a question of fact, and it, therefore, becomes our duty to look into the record for the purpose of determining whether there was a question of fact involved in the case. (Otten v. Manh. Ry. Co., 150 N. Y. 395, 401 ; Hirshfeld v. Fitzgerald, 157 N. Y. 166, 176 ; Health Dept. v. Dassori, 159 N. Y. 245, 249.) Upon looking into the record of this case, we find the chief issue to be the question as to whether Alden, the insurance broker who procured the policy, was the agent of the plaintiff or of the defendant. This was clearly a question of fact which this court, under the Constitution, is prohibited from reviewing. It, therefore, follows that the appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

C. A. Smith Lumber Co. v. Colonial Assurance Co.
172 A.D. 149 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916)
In Re the Administration of the Estate of Mosher
78 N.E. 145 (New York Court of Appeals, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 N.E. 395, 161 N.Y. 120, 15 E.H. Smith 120, 1899 N.Y. LEXIS 932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bini-v-smith-ny-1899.