Blunt v. Hibbard

New York Court of Common Pleas

Blunt v. Hibbard

3 N.Y.S. 121, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 500

DecidedNovember 28, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.Y.S. 121 (Blunt v. Hibbard) 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

Blunt v. Hibbard, 3 N.Y.S. 121, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 500 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Bookstaver, J.

The action is brought to set aside a certain composition "deed and release on the ground of fraud; also to vacate an order discharging an assignee on the ground of fraud, and to obtain a decree requiring all the defendants to pay the plaintiff his claim against the debtors, and that a receiver be appointed. The issues presented for trial by a jury are 33 in number. This fact alone, it seems to me, would be a sufficient reason for not sending them to the jury. They are so many that the jury would necessarily be confused; besides, many of the issues presented have been determined as to some -of the parties in another action, and intricate questions of law must arise upon •the trial of these issues. While any judge would be glad to be relieved of the ■responsibility of determining the questions of fact, I do not think his labors in the end would be the less; and I am convinced that the rights of the parties would be better protected if a judge were to determine all of the issues, both of fact and of law. Besides, the motion was not made within 10 days after issue joined, and I think it is too late, under rule 31. Notwithstanding defendants’ contention, I think the action is one peculiarly within the province of a court of equity, and the sending of issues to a jury for trial is therefore discretionary, (Code, §§ 969-971;) and where such intricate questions are involved, I think, the discretion should not be exercised, (Acker v. Leland, 109 N. Y. 5, 15 N. E. Rep. 743.) The motion is therefore denied, without-cost,s.

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

Bookstaver, J.

The action is brought to set aside a certain composition "deed and release on the ground of fraud; also to vacate an order discharging an assignee on the ground of fraud, and to obtain a decree requiring all the defendants to pay the plaintiff his claim against the debtors, and that a receiver be appointed. The issues presented for trial by a jury are 33 in number. This fact alone, it seems to me, would be a sufficient reason for not sending them to the jury. They are so many that the jury would necessarily be confused; besides, many of the issues presented have been determined as to some -of the parties in another action, and intricate questions of law must arise upon •the trial of these issues. While any judge would be glad to be relieved of the ■responsibility of determining the questions of fact, I do not think his labors in the end would be the less; and I am convinced that the rights of the parties would be better protected if a judge were to determine all of the issues, both of fact and of law. Besides, the motion was not made within 10 days after issue joined, and I think it is too late, under rule 31. Notwithstanding defendants’ contention, I think the action is one peculiarly within the province of a court of equity, and the sending of issues to a jury for trial is therefore discretionary, (Code, §§ 969-971;) and where such intricate questions are involved, I think, the discretion should not be exercised, (Acker v. Leland, 109 N. Y. 5, 15 N. E. Rep. 743.) The motion is therefore denied, without-cost,s.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.Y.S. 121, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blunt-v-hibbard-nyctcompl-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack