Duran v. Chelsea Exchange Bank

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Duran v. Chelsea Exchange Bank

123 Misc. 158, 204 N.Y.S. 844, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 889

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 29, 1924

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 123 Misc. 158 (Duran v. Chelsea Exchange Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duran v. Chelsea Exchange Bank, 123 Misc. 158, 204 N.Y.S. 844, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Wasservogel, J.

In this action for money had and received a jury found a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel immediately moved for a new trial upon the grounds specified in section 549 of the Civil Practice Act. The motion was denied. Thereafter another motion was made to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, this time based upon the affidavits of plaintiff’s trial counsel and three of the jurors who heard and took part in the decision of the case. In their affidavits these jurors referred to an examination made by them of certain exhibits in the jury room and alleged that the exhibits were misunderstood by the . jurors and that an erroneous verdict had been rendered. Jurors may not be heard to impeach their own verdict. In view of the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict made upon its rendition, the motion thereafter made, which resulted in this appeal, should not have been entertained.

Order setting aside verdict reversed, with ten dollars costs, and verdict and judgment reinstated.

Guy and Wagner, JJ., concur.

Order reversed.

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

Wasservogel, J.

In this action for money had and received a jury found a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel immediately moved for a new trial upon the grounds specified in section 549 of the Civil Practice Act. The motion was denied. Thereafter another motion was made to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, this time based upon the affidavits of plaintiff’s trial counsel and three of the jurors who heard and took part in the decision of the case. In their affidavits these jurors referred to an examination made by them of certain exhibits in the jury room and alleged that the exhibits were misunderstood by the . jurors and that an erroneous verdict had been rendered. Jurors may not be heard to impeach their own verdict. In view of the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict made upon its rendition, the motion thereafter made, which resulted in this appeal, should not have been entertained.

Order setting aside verdict reversed, with ten dollars costs, and verdict and judgment reinstated.

Guy and Wagner, JJ., concur.

Order reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 Misc. 158, 204 N.Y.S. 844, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duran-v-chelsea-exchange-bank-nyappterm-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack