Cheever v. Scottish Union & National Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cheever v. Scottish Union & National Insurance

86 A.D. 331, 83 N.Y.S. 732, 1903 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2362

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1903

DocketNo. 2

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 86 A.D. 331 (Cheever v. Scottish Union & National Insurance) 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

Cheever v. Scottish Union & National Insurance, 86 A.D. 331, 83 N.Y.S. 732, 1903 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Woodward, J. :

A sufficient reason for affirming the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence is found in'the fact that the moving papers do not contain the affidavits of the newly-discoveréd witnesses nor offer any excuse for their absence. The rule of practice is well established that motions-of this Character- must be founded on the affidavits of the newly-discovered witnesses; that they are ready to - swear to the facts-claimed to be newly discovered or showing that such affidavits cannot be obtained. (Matter of Cohen, 84 Hun, 586, 589, and authorities there cited.) In the case before us there is an affidavit of an attorney that in another case certain witnesses testified to facts which resulted in a verdict of a jury different from that in the case-at bar, although both actions related to the same property, and an assistant testifies that the evidence as taken from the minutes of the other trial was as set forth in the record. There is no excuse given for the fact that the alleged new witnesses do not make affidavits ; there is no declaration that these alleged new witnesses are living and will be called on a new trial, or that they would testify the saméin this action as in the one where this testimony was previously given. More than this, the case at bar was tried upon the theory of fraud and the newly-discovered evidence is merely cumulative upon this point, and it is urged only'that Upon the other trial it resulted in producing a less verdict, in proportion to the amount involved, than in the case at bar. '

We are of opinion that there is no reason for granting a new trial in this cáse and that the moving papers do not warrant an inter[333]*333ference here with the sound discretion exercised by the court at Trial Term.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Bartlett, Hirschberg, Jeitks and Hooker, JJ., concurred.

Order denying motion for new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence affirmed, with costs.

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

Woodward, J. :

A sufficient reason for affirming the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence is found in'the fact that the moving papers do not contain the affidavits of the newly-discoveréd witnesses nor offer any excuse for their absence. The rule of practice is well established that motions-of this Character- must be founded on the affidavits of the newly-discovered witnesses; that they are ready to - swear to the facts-claimed to be newly discovered or showing that such affidavits cannot be obtained. (Matter of Cohen, 84 Hun, 586, 589, and authorities there cited.) In the case before us there is an affidavit of an attorney that in another case certain witnesses testified to facts which resulted in a verdict of a jury different from that in the case-at bar, although both actions related to the same property, and an assistant testifies that the evidence as taken from the minutes of the other trial was as set forth in the record. There is no excuse given for the fact that the alleged new witnesses do not make affidavits ; there is no declaration that these alleged new witnesses are living and will be called on a new trial, or that they would testify the saméin this action as in the one where this testimony was previously given. More than this, the case at bar was tried upon the theory of fraud and the newly-discovered evidence is merely cumulative upon this point, and it is urged only'that Upon the other trial it resulted in producing a less verdict, in proportion to the amount involved, than in the case at bar. '

We are of opinion that there is no reason for granting a new trial in this cáse and that the moving papers do not warrant an inter[333]*333ference here with the sound discretion exercised by the court at Trial Term.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Bartlett, Hirschberg, Jeitks and Hooker, JJ., concurred.

Order denying motion for new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D. 331, 83 N.Y.S. 732, 1903 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheever-v-scottish-union-national-insurance-nyappdiv-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack