Kilpatrick v. Columbia Bank

The Superior Court of New York City

Kilpatrick v. Columbia Bank

57 Jones & S. 144

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJune 28, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 57 Jones & S. 144 (Kilpatrick v. Columbia Bank) 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

Kilpatrick v. Columbia Bank, 57 Jones & S. 144 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.—Sedgwick, Oh. J.

In this case, I think the motion for a new' trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence, the defendant having at the trial claimed that the court should direyt a verdict, because the preponderance of evidence was with the defendant, should have been granted. The plaintiffs made out a slight case. Many probabilities, intrinsic in the circumstances, were in favor of defendant. The defendant’s witnesses gave substantial testimony in contradiction of plaintiffs. In rebuttal the plaintiffs called as a witness, a person for whose credibility they vouched by putting him under oath. That witness’s testimony told for the defendant and against the plaintiffs, so clearly and in such substantial respects, that to me it appears certain that the preponderance of evidence was with the defendant. The motion should have been granted.

I think, also, that the verdict should have been directed for defendant, as requested on the trial.

Judgment and order appealed from reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Freedman and Truax, JJ., concurred.

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

By the Court.—Sedgwick, Oh. J.

In this case, I think the motion for a new' trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence, the defendant having at the trial claimed that the court should direyt a verdict, because the preponderance of evidence was with the defendant, should have been granted. The plaintiffs made out a slight case. Many probabilities, intrinsic in the circumstances, were in favor of defendant. The defendant’s witnesses gave substantial testimony in contradiction of plaintiffs. In rebuttal the plaintiffs called as a witness, a person for whose credibility they vouched by putting him under oath. That witness’s testimony told for the defendant and against the plaintiffs, so clearly and in such substantial respects, that to me it appears certain that the preponderance of evidence was with the defendant. The motion should have been granted.

I think, also, that the verdict should have been directed for defendant, as requested on the trial.

Judgment and order appealed from reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Freedman and Truax, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Jones & S. 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kilpatrick-v-columbia-bank-nysuperctnyc-1889.