Goldman v. Matzger

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldman v. Matzger

106 N.Y.S. 1093

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 29, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 106 N.Y.S. 1093 (Goldman v. Matzger) 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

Goldman v. Matzger, 106 N.Y.S. 1093 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A careful examination of the record in this case leads us to the conclusion that the issues should be again laid before a jury for their determination. The contract alleged by the plaintiff to have been made with the defendant is so much out of the ordinary course of business transactions, when viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances disclosed by the evidence, as to give it more than a tinge of improbability. The verdict seems to have been given without a careful weighing of the probabilities and reasonable inferences to be drawn from the testimony, and without due regard for the well-known rule of law that the party who holds the affirmative of the issues must bear the burden of proof. We are firmly of the opinion that the interests of justice will be best subserved by ordering a new trial.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

A careful examination of the record in this case leads us to the conclusion that the issues should be again laid before a jury for their determination. The contract alleged by the plaintiff to have been made with the defendant is so much out of the ordinary course of business transactions, when viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances disclosed by the evidence, as to give it more than a tinge of improbability. The verdict seems to have been given without a careful weighing of the probabilities and reasonable inferences to be drawn from the testimony, and without due regard for the well-known rule of law that the party who holds the affirmative of the issues must bear the burden of proof. We are firmly of the opinion that the interests of justice will be best subserved by ordering a new trial.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 N.Y.S. 1093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-matzger-nyappterm-1907.