Fischer v. Reilly

New York Court of Common Pleas

Fischer v. Reilly

3 N.Y.S. 757, 22 N.Y. St. Rep. 280, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 76

DecidedFebruary 4, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.Y.S. 757 (Fischer v. Reilly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fischer v. Reilly, 3 N.Y.S. 757, 22 N.Y. St. Rep. 280, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 76 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is manifest from the case that the undisputed item of $20 was overlooked on the trial by both parties, and for this the plaintiffs were as much in fault as the court or the defendants. After the verdict had ■been rendered, and the oversight was called to the attention of the court, it promptly corrected the error, as it had the power to do. Burhans v. Tibbits, 7 How. Pr. 21; Van Schoening v. Buchanan, 14 Abb. Pr. 185; Clark v. Richards, 3 E. D. Smith, 89. The fact that this changed the general verdict for the defendants into a specific judgment in plaintiffs’ favor is to the advantage •of the latter, and they cannot complain of ft; especially as we cannot see how ■the oversight of the court in respect to this item in any way influenced the jury on the other questions involved in the case, or that any error was committed by the court in its charge as to the other property in controversy. The judgment and order must therefore be affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

It is manifest from the case that the undisputed item of $20 was overlooked on the trial by both parties, and for this the plaintiffs were as much in fault as the court or the defendants. After the verdict had ■been rendered, and the oversight was called to the attention of the court, it promptly corrected the error, as it had the power to do. Burhans v. Tibbits, 7 How. Pr. 21; Van Schoening v. Buchanan, 14 Abb. Pr. 185; Clark v. Richards, 3 E. D. Smith, 89. The fact that this changed the general verdict for the defendants into a specific judgment in plaintiffs’ favor is to the advantage •of the latter, and they cannot complain of ft; especially as we cannot see how ■the oversight of the court in respect to this item in any way influenced the jury on the other questions involved in the case, or that any error was committed by the court in its charge as to the other property in controversy. The judgment and order must therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.Y.S. 757, 22 N.Y. St. Rep. 280, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fischer-v-reilly-nyctcompl-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack