Jones v. Archer

The Superior Court of New York City

Jones v. Archer

2 Hall 349

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedOctober 15, 1829

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Hall 349 (Jones v. Archer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Archer, 2 Hall 349 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1829).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The justice having given judgment for the defendant below, on the merits, taxed his costs, and included in them the costs of the plaintiff, or a part of them, and rendered judgment for those costs in favor of the defendant. This was erroneous, on the authority of the case of Dennison v. Collins, [1 Cowen’s Rep. 111.] In that case, the judgment was affirmed as to the damages, and [350]*350reversed as to the costs, on the ground that one item in the bill was illegally charged.

Upon the merits, in this case, the justice decided that the plaintiff ought not to recover. There was evidence to support that view of the case, and we do not reverse a justice’s judgment, upon the ground that he has decided against evidence, unless the mistake is very clear.

Judgment reversed as to the costs, and affirmed as to the residue.

[W. H. Elting, Att'y for the plff. J. M. Cannon, Att'y for the deft.]

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

Per Curiam.

The justice having given judgment for the defendant below, on the merits, taxed his costs, and included in them the costs of the plaintiff, or a part of them, and rendered judgment for those costs in favor of the defendant. This was erroneous, on the authority of the case of Dennison v. Collins, [1 Cowen’s Rep. 111.] In that case, the judgment was affirmed as to the damages, and [350]*350reversed as to the costs, on the ground that one item in the bill was illegally charged.

Upon the merits, in this case, the justice decided that the plaintiff ought not to recover. There was evidence to support that view of the case, and we do not reverse a justice’s judgment, upon the ground that he has decided against evidence, unless the mistake is very clear.

Judgment reversed as to the costs, and affirmed as to the residue.

[W. H. Elting, Att'y for the plff. J. M. Cannon, Att'y for the deft.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Hall 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-archer-nysuperctnyc-1829.