Keeler v. Poughkeepsie & Salt Point Plank Road Co.

10 How. Pr. 11
New York Supreme Court·Decided September 15, 1854·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Dean, Justice.

I think the motion must be denied, for two reasons. If the defendants’ answer is true, the trial will not involve the examination of any account; and defendant at least must be held bound by his own allegations.

But even if the plaintiff’s view of the case is correct, before it can be established, that issue is to be tried, and then, if decided in the plaintiff’s favor, it may be necessary to examine the accounts of the parties. If that issue is found for the defendants, then no accounts are to be examined. A reference can only be compelled where the court can see by the pleadings, or other papers of the parties, that the trial of the cause must necessarily involve the examination of a long account on either side. The cause must, therefore, retain its place on the calendar, unless the parties can agree to a reference.

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

Keeler v. Poughkeepsie & Salt Point Plank Road Co., 10 How. Pr. 11 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1854).

10 How. Pr. 11 (Keeler v. Poughkeepsie & Salt Point Plank Road Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thornton v. Life Ass'n of America
7 Mo. App. 544 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1879)
Schermerhorn v. Wood
4 Daly 158 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1871)
Batchelor v. Albany City Insurance
6 Abb. Pr. 240 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1869)
Turner v. Taylor
2 Daly 278 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1867)
Ross v. Mayor of New York
2 Abb. Pr. 266 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1866)