Cromwell v. Hall

New York Supreme Court

Cromwell v. Hall

34 N.Y.S. 1137, 95 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 617, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 869

DecidedJune 14, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 34 N.Y.S. 1137 (Cromwell v. Hall) 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

Cromwell v. Hall, 34 N.Y.S. 1137, 95 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 617, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 869 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

The notice of appeal, not containing any demand for a new trial, raised questions of law only, and it was the respondent’s duty, if there was any other evidence than that contained in the appeal book, to have caused such evidence to be inserted in the justice’s return. Halpin v. Insurance Co., 118 N. Y. 165, 23 N. E. 482. The justice’s return, however, states that it contains all the testimony given on the trial, and the question presented is whether there is any evidence to support the verdict. The testimony in the justice’s return does not show any indebtedness of the defendant to the plaintiff, and it is absolutely impossible, on any view of the case, to ascertain how the jury arrived at their verdict. The judgment is wholly unsupported by the testimony, and as we cannot, upon the record before us, indulge in any presumption in the respondent’s favor, it should be reversed.

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

BROWN, P. J.

The notice of appeal, not containing any demand for a new trial, raised questions of law only, and it was the respondent’s duty, if there was any other evidence than that contained in the appeal book, to have caused such evidence to be inserted in the justice’s return. Halpin v. Insurance Co., 118 N. Y. 165, 23 N. E. 482. The justice’s return, however, states that it contains all the testimony given on the trial, and the question presented is whether there is any evidence to support the verdict. The testimony in the justice’s return does not show any indebtedness of the defendant to the plaintiff, and it is absolutely impossible, on any view of the case, to ascertain how the jury arrived at their verdict. The judgment is wholly unsupported by the testimony, and as we cannot, upon the record before us, indulge in any presumption in the respondent’s favor, it should be reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.Y.S. 1137, 95 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 617, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cromwell-v-hall-nysupct-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack