Freedlander v. Wilson

187 A.D. 919

This text of 187 A.D. 919 (Freedlander v. Wilson) 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
Freedlander v. Wilson, 187 A.D. 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

Judgment of Special Term reversed and judgment of City Court affirmed, with costs to plaintiff in this court and at the Special Term. Held, 1. It is an intendment of the law that a verdict, when found, settles in favor of the prevailing party every question of fact litigated on the trial. (Colaizzi v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 143 App. Div. 645; affd., 208 N. Y. 275.) 2. That the City Court must have found as a fact that the plaintiff made a clear demand on the defendant for the surrender of the ring and that the defendant absolutely refused to surrender it. 3. That the demand made by the plaintiff for the ring and the defendant’s unqualified refusal to surrender it constituted a waiver of any other, better or different demand. (6 C. J. 1151; Holbrook v. Wight, 24 Wend. 169; Rogers v. Weir, 34 N. Y. 463; Ball v. Liney, 48 id. 6.) All concurred.

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

Related

Colaizzi v. . Pennsylvania R.R. Co.
101 N.E. 859 (New York Court of Appeals, 1913)
Rogers v. . Weir
34 N.Y. 463 (New York Court of Appeals, 1866)
Colaizzi v. Pennsylvania Railroad
143 A.D. 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 A.D. 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freedlander-v-wilson-nyappdiv-1919.