Canepari v. Bernheimer & Schwartz Pilsener Brewing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Canepari v. Bernheimer & Schwartz Pilsener Brewing Co.

155 N.Y.S. 406

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 5, 1915

DocketNo. 7729

StatusPublished

This text of 155 N.Y.S. 406 (Canepari v. Bernheimer & Schwartz Pilsener Brewing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Canepari v. Bernheimer & Schwartz Pilsener Brewing Co., 155 N.Y.S. 406 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We are of the opinion that appellant was entitled to have included in the case on appeal those portions of the summation by the respondent’s counsel which were taken down at defendant’s request, and upon which, in part, the appellant seeks to base his argument on appeal. It may be that the defendant’s exception did not raise a question of law. Upon that question we now express no opinion. The verdict, however, is a large one, and this court is entitled to consider and pass upon the question whether or not it is excessive. It may be that the character of the summing up by counsel would throw light on that question, and, whether or not defendant’s exception raised [407]*407any legal question, it might be considered as a protest against the substance and manner of the summation, and forestall any suggestion that the objection thereto was an afterthought.

Order appealed from reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion to allow amendment granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

We are of the opinion that appellant was entitled to have included in the case on appeal those portions of the summation by the respondent’s counsel which were taken down at defendant’s request, and upon which, in part, the appellant seeks to base his argument on appeal. It may be that the defendant’s exception did not raise a question of law. Upon that question we now express no opinion. The verdict, however, is a large one, and this court is entitled to consider and pass upon the question whether or not it is excessive. It may be that the character of the summing up by counsel would throw light on that question, and, whether or not defendant’s exception raised [407]*407any legal question, it might be considered as a protest against the substance and manner of the summation, and forestall any suggestion that the objection thereto was an afterthought.

Order appealed from reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion to allow amendment granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 N.Y.S. 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canepari-v-bernheimer-schwartz-pilsener-brewing-co-nyappdiv-1915.