Fischer v. Reilly

3 N.Y.S. 757, 22 N.Y. St. Rep. 280, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 76
New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided February 4, 1889·Published

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

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).

3 N.Y.S. 757 (Fischer v. Reilly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burhans v. Tibbits
7 How. Pr. 21 (New York Supreme Court, 1851)
Von Schoening v. Buchanan
14 Abb. Pr. 185 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1862)