Brian v. Mead

New York Supreme Court

Brian v. Mead

15 N.Y.S. 488, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 921, 60 Hun 585, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3295

DecidedJuly 2, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 15 N.Y.S. 488 (Brian v. Mead) 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

Brian v. Mead, 15 N.Y.S. 488, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 921, 60 Hun 585, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3295 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard, P. J.

The appeal in this case presents only a question of fact. The proof shows that the parties made an agreement by which the defendant sold to the plaintiff all the wood standing within certain described boundaries. The district was marked off by blazed or marked lines, but when the contract was put in writing a portion of the district was. left out of the same. The parties differ as to the facts. The plaintiff testifies that the defendant was “satisfied witli the marks as we had made them.” The plaintiff’s view of the fact was supported by the testimony of Mr. Adams. The defendant denies that there was any omission of the description, and he is supported in his view by the witnesses Johnson and Lockwood. There is no case for an appellate court to interfere. The decision of the trial judge must be deemed to be final upon a question so evenly balanced as to the witnesses, and where there is nothing in the testimony to call for a reversal. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Barnard, P. J.

The appeal in this case presents only a question of fact. The proof shows that the parties made an agreement by which the defendant sold to the plaintiff all the wood standing within certain described boundaries. The district was marked off by blazed or marked lines, but when the contract was put in writing a portion of the district was. left out of the same. The parties differ as to the facts. The plaintiff testifies that the defendant was “satisfied witli the marks as we had made them.” The plaintiff’s view of the fact was supported by the testimony of Mr. Adams. The defendant denies that there was any omission of the description, and he is supported in his view by the witnesses Johnson and Lockwood. There is no case for an appellate court to interfere. The decision of the trial judge must be deemed to be final upon a question so evenly balanced as to the witnesses, and where there is nothing in the testimony to call for a reversal. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.Y.S. 488, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 921, 60 Hun 585, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brian-v-mead-nysupct-1891.