Kilmer v. Messling

New York Supreme Court

Kilmer v. Messling

24 N.Y.S. 343, 70 Hun 582, 77 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 582, 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 668

DecidedJuly 8, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 24 N.Y.S. 343 (Kilmer v. Messling) 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

Kilmer v. Messling, 24 N.Y.S. 343, 70 Hun 582, 77 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 582, 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 668 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

HERRICK, J.

From an examination of the testimony in this case, I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify the justice in holding the defendant Messling liable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was entitled to interest upon his claim. It may be, however, that the justice has made an error in the computation of the amount. The error, however, is so small in amount that I do not think that substantial justice would be done by reversing the judgment of the justice for that reason. Code Civil Proc. §' 3063, says: “The appellate court must render judgment according to the justice of the case, without regard to technical errors, or defects which do not affect the merits.” I do not think that parties should be encouraged to appeal, where the error in amount is trivial, and incur the expense of the appeal themselves, or subject their adversaries to such expense. When substantial justice has been done between the parties the judgment should not be disturbed. The judgment of the county court should be reversed, and that of the justice affirmed, with costs.

MAYHAM, P. J., concurs. PUTNAM, J., not acting.

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

HERRICK, J.

From an examination of the testimony in this case, I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify the justice in holding the defendant Messling liable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was entitled to interest upon his claim. It may be, however, that the justice has made an error in the computation of the amount. The error, however, is so small in amount that I do not think that substantial justice would be done by reversing the judgment of the justice for that reason. Code Civil Proc. §' 3063, says: “The appellate court must render judgment according to the justice of the case, without regard to technical errors, or defects which do not affect the merits.” I do not think that parties should be encouraged to appeal, where the error in amount is trivial, and incur the expense of the appeal themselves, or subject their adversaries to such expense. When substantial justice has been done between the parties the judgment should not be disturbed. The judgment of the county court should be reversed, and that of the justice affirmed, with costs.

MAYHAM, P. J., concurs. PUTNAM, J., not acting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 N.Y.S. 343, 70 Hun 582, 77 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 582, 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kilmer-v-messling-nysupct-1893.