Bolles v. Heckman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Bolles v. Heckman

119 N.Y.S. 154

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 12, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 119 N.Y.S. 154 (Bolles v. Heckman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bolles v. Heckman, 119 N.Y.S. 154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

While the court below seems to have been warranted in setting aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the ground that the amount of the damages clearly indicated a compromise and was unsupported by the evidence, still, inasmuch as the jury found upon sufficient testimony in favor of the plaintiff on the main issues in suit, and erred, through no fault of plaintiff, only in the amount allowed for damages, terms should have been imposed as a condition for setting aside the verdict. Murphy v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 88 N. Y. Supp. 187.

It seems to us that the order should be modified, by imposing as a condition- for the granting of the same the payment of a sum equal to costs before and after notice of trial, one term fee, and a trial fee, and, as so modified the order is affirmed, without costs to either party of this appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

While the court below seems to have been warranted in setting aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the ground that the amount of the damages clearly indicated a compromise and was unsupported by the evidence, still, inasmuch as the jury found upon sufficient testimony in favor of the plaintiff on the main issues in suit, and erred, through no fault of plaintiff, only in the amount allowed for damages, terms should have been imposed as a condition for setting aside the verdict. Murphy v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 88 N. Y. Supp. 187.

It seems to us that the order should be modified, by imposing as a condition- for the granting of the same the payment of a sum equal to costs before and after notice of trial, one term fee, and a trial fee, and, as so modified the order is affirmed, without costs to either party of this appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 N.Y.S. 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolles-v-heckman-nyappterm-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack