Hand v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hand v. Hill

255 A.D. 1016, 8 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6277

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 31, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 1016 (Hand v. Hill) 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

Hand v. Hill, 255 A.D. 1016, 8 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Action brought by the plaintiff, an undertaker, to recover from the defendants his compensation and disbursements for services. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying their motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, the defendants appeal. Judgment tand order unanimously affirmed, with costs. At the trial a sealed verdict was ordered. Late in the evening, the jury having failed to agree, the court permitted them to separate and directed them to return to court the next morning to continue their deliberations. Upon their reconvening, the court, in the absence of counsel on both sides, admonished the jury to endeavor to reach a verdict by calm and dispassionate deliberation, pointing out that the amount involved was small and stating that he would dislike to put the county to the expense of another trial. Such separation of the jury before they reached a verdict was not irregular and did not effect their discharge as a jury. (Porret v. City of New York, 252 N. Y. 208.) This case is not within the rule stated in Schattner v. Reriman (247 App. Div. 730). The court’s remarks to the jury on then return for further deliberation did not constitute an additional charge to the jury. Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Davis, J., concur in result.

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

Action brought by the plaintiff, an undertaker, to recover from the defendants his compensation and disbursements for services. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying their motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, the defendants appeal. Judgment tand order unanimously affirmed, with costs. At the trial a sealed verdict was ordered. Late in the evening, the jury having failed to agree, the court permitted them to separate and directed them to return to court the next morning to continue their deliberations. Upon their reconvening, the court, in the absence of counsel on both sides, admonished the jury to endeavor to reach a verdict by calm and dispassionate deliberation, pointing out that the amount involved was small and stating that he would dislike to put the county to the expense of another trial. Such separation of the jury before they reached a verdict was not irregular and did not effect their discharge as a jury. (Porret v. City of New York, 252 N. Y. 208.) This case is not within the rule stated in Schattner v. Reriman (247 App. Div. 730). The court’s remarks to the jury on then return for further deliberation did not constitute an additional charge to the jury. Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Davis, J., concur in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 1016, 8 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hand-v-hill-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack