Griggs v. Day

Superior Court of New York

Griggs v. Day

12 N.Y.S. 958, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 917

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJanuary 5, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 12 N.Y.S. 958 (Griggs v. Day) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Griggs v. Day, 12 N.Y.S. 958, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 917 (superctny 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Freedman, J.

The court, for the reasons stated by the chief judge in his opinion, came to the conclusion that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial had. 11 N. Y. Supp. 885. At the time of the announcement of the decision it was thought, however, that perhaps a new trial could be obviated, if the defendants were to give a stipulation consenting to a reduction of the amount of the judgment recovered by them against the plaintiff, in accordance with the principles laid down in the opinion, and a suggestion was made to that effect. Having now heard counsel on the settlement of the order to be entered, and it being conceded by both sides that under the said opinion the plaintiff is entitled to a credit of $1,736,600, with interest from May 1,1883, to the date of the referee’s report, but the respondents being unwilling to consent to such determination unless they receive a corresponding credit of $325,262.66 for the notes not paid by second mortgage bonds, and this new difference between the parties being of such a nature as to make it proper, in view of the complicated state of the accounts, that they should have a further hearing concerning it upon a new trial,—I am of the opinion that the order to be entered should provide for the unconditional reversal of the judgment upon the facts as well as the law, and for a new.trial in accordance with the principles laid down in the opinion.

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

Freedman, J.

The court, for the reasons stated by the chief judge in his opinion, came to the conclusion that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial had. 11 N. Y. Supp. 885. At the time of the announcement of the decision it was thought, however, that perhaps a new trial could be obviated, if the defendants were to give a stipulation consenting to a reduction of the amount of the judgment recovered by them against the plaintiff, in accordance with the principles laid down in the opinion, and a suggestion was made to that effect. Having now heard counsel on the settlement of the order to be entered, and it being conceded by both sides that under the said opinion the plaintiff is entitled to a credit of $1,736,600, with interest from May 1,1883, to the date of the referee’s report, but the respondents being unwilling to consent to such determination unless they receive a corresponding credit of $325,262.66 for the notes not paid by second mortgage bonds, and this new difference between the parties being of such a nature as to make it proper, in view of the complicated state of the accounts, that they should have a further hearing concerning it upon a new trial,—I am of the opinion that the order to be entered should provide for the unconditional reversal of the judgment upon the facts as well as the law, and for a new.trial in accordance with the principles laid down in the opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.Y.S. 958, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griggs-v-day-superctny-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack