Kilpatrick v. Columbia Bank

Superior Court of New York

Kilpatrick v. Columbia Bank

5 N.Y.S. 960, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2786

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJune 28, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 5 N.Y.S. 960 (Kilpatrick v. Columbia Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo 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, 5 N.Y.S. 960, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2786 (superctny 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Sedgwick, 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 direct a verdict because the preponderance of evidence was with the defendant, should have been granted. The plaintiffs made a slight case. Many probabilities and intrinsic circumstances were in favor of defendant. The defendant’s witnesses gave substantial testimony in favor of plaintiffs. In rebuttal, the plaintiffs called as a witness a person for whose credibility he vouched by putting him under oath. That witness’ 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.

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

Sedgwick, 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 direct a verdict because the preponderance of evidence was with the defendant, should have been granted. The plaintiffs made a slight case. Many probabilities and intrinsic circumstances were in favor of defendant. The defendant’s witnesses gave substantial testimony in favor of plaintiffs. In rebuttal, the plaintiffs called as a witness a person for whose credibility he vouched by putting him under oath. That witness’ 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 N.Y.S. 960, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kilpatrick-v-columbia-bank-superctny-1889.