Latham v. Delaney

The Superior Court of New York City

Latham v. Delaney

39 N.Y. St. Rep. 369

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJuly 2, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 369 (Latham v. Delaney) 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

Latham v. Delaney, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 369 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Freedman, J.

—This action was brought in 1889 to recover upon a judgment alleged to have been obtained against the defendant in 1884, in the circuit court of Rockingham county, in the state of Virginia The plaintiff claims that the judgment was obtained after due service of process, and the voluntary appearance of the defendant The defendant, on the other hand, claims that the court of Virginia never acquired jurisdiction because he,, the defendant, was not served with process according to the laws of Virginia, and did not appear or authorize an appearance. Upon these issues both parties gave proof, in accordance with the decision of this court upon a former appeal (see 12 N. Y. Supp., 463; 35 N. Y. State Rep., 462), and all the questions arising thereon were submitted to the j ury under a charge which carefully guarded every right which the defendant had. There was no error in the charge, or the refusals to charge otherwise. It would have been error to dismiss the complaint, and it cannot be maintained that the verdict is against evidence or the weight of the evidence. The jury were not bound by the number of the witnesses, but had the right to determine the questions submitted to them, according to the facts- and circumstances established by the testimony which they believed. There were several admissions by the defendant which greatly damaged the effect of his denials, and undoubtedly had great weight with the jury. Ror can I find any error in the admission of evidence which, under all the circumstances, calls for a reversal.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Dugro and Gildersleeve, JJ., concur.

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

Freedman, J.

—This action was brought in 1889 to recover upon a judgment alleged to have been obtained against the defendant in 1884, in the circuit court of Rockingham county, in the state of Virginia The plaintiff claims that the judgment was obtained after due service of process, and the voluntary appearance of the defendant The defendant, on the other hand, claims that the court of Virginia never acquired jurisdiction because he,, the defendant, was not served with process according to the laws of Virginia, and did not appear or authorize an appearance. Upon these issues both parties gave proof, in accordance with the decision of this court upon a former appeal (see 12 N. Y. Supp., 463; 35 N. Y. State Rep., 462), and all the questions arising thereon were submitted to the j ury under a charge which carefully guarded every right which the defendant had. There was no error in the charge, or the refusals to charge otherwise. It would have been error to dismiss the complaint, and it cannot be maintained that the verdict is against evidence or the weight of the evidence. The jury were not bound by the number of the witnesses, but had the right to determine the questions submitted to them, according to the facts- and circumstances established by the testimony which they believed. There were several admissions by the defendant which greatly damaged the effect of his denials, and undoubtedly had great weight with the jury. Ror can I find any error in the admission of evidence which, under all the circumstances, calls for a reversal.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Dugro and Gildersleeve, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 N.Y. St. Rep. 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latham-v-delaney-nysuperctnyc-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack