Henderson v. McReynolds

New York Supreme Court

Henderson v. McReynolds

14 N.Y.S. 351, 38 N.Y. St. Rep. 734, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1990

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 11, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 14 N.Y.S. 351 (Henderson v. McReynolds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henderson v. McReynolds, 14 N.Y.S. 351, 38 N.Y. St. Rep. 734, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1990 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Pratt, J.

This was an action of false imprisonment, tried before a jury, who assessed the damages at six cents, which verdict was set aside as inadequate. The judge charged the jury that, at most, the detention was only a technical arrest, and that' the measure of damages was entirely within their discretion. This was right, as the evidence showed that plaintiff was arrested and detained only long enough to walk across the street, and the verdict was consistent with the charge. There was no basis-for any specific sum as damages, and, the jury having estimated the same as nominal, it was not proper for the court to interfere. Indeed, it is not clear that a verdict for the defendant would not have been justified.- We think it is clear that the case is one where a verdict cannot be properly interfered with. Order reversed, with costs.

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

Pratt, J.

This was an action of false imprisonment, tried before a jury, who assessed the damages at six cents, which verdict was set aside as inadequate. The judge charged the jury that, at most, the detention was only a technical arrest, and that' the measure of damages was entirely within their discretion. This was right, as the evidence showed that plaintiff was arrested and detained only long enough to walk across the street, and the verdict was consistent with the charge. There was no basis-for any specific sum as damages, and, the jury having estimated the same as nominal, it was not proper for the court to interfere. Indeed, it is not clear that a verdict for the defendant would not have been justified.- We think it is clear that the case is one where a verdict cannot be properly interfered with. Order reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.Y.S. 351, 38 N.Y. St. Rep. 734, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-mcreynolds-nysupct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack