Chambers v. Goldklang

City of New York Municipal Court

Chambers v. Goldklang

60 N.Y.S. 998

DecidedNovember 21, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 60 N.Y.S. 998 (Chambers v. Goldklang) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chambers v. Goldklang, 60 N.Y.S. 998 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

CONLAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict directed by the court at trial term, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The action was brought to recover commissions as broker on obtaining a loan of $15,000 on defendant’s property. A careful reading of the evidence adduced upon the trial fails to convince us that any error was committed in a direction of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. There does not appear any serious conflict of any kind, unless it be between the defendant and one of Ms own witnesses; and, taking either view of the case, there was nothing whereon a jury could be called upon to deliberate. The result to be ascertained was a simple computation of what was 1 per cent, on $>15,000, and what was the legal interest on the ascertained sum for a given time. The defendant made no request to be permitted to go to the jury, and a subsequent motion for a new trial was ineffectual [999]*999for any purpose without the request, or a refusal, and an exception to the charge itself.

The judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

CONLAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict directed by the court at trial term, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The action was brought to recover commissions as broker on obtaining a loan of $15,000 on defendant’s property. A careful reading of the evidence adduced upon the trial fails to convince us that any error was committed in a direction of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. There does not appear any serious conflict of any kind, unless it be between the defendant and one of Ms own witnesses; and, taking either view of the case, there was nothing whereon a jury could be called upon to deliberate. The result to be ascertained was a simple computation of what was 1 per cent, on $>15,000, and what was the legal interest on the ascertained sum for a given time. The defendant made no request to be permitted to go to the jury, and a subsequent motion for a new trial was ineffectual [999]*999for any purpose without the request, or a refusal, and an exception to the charge itself.

The judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 N.Y.S. 998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-v-goldklang-nynyccityct-1899.