Lipps v. Markowitz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lipps v. Markowitz

84 N.Y.S. 172

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 172 (Lipps v. Markowitz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lipps v. Markowitz, 84 N.Y.S. 172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

The plaintiffs are manufacturers of clothing, and the defendants are contract tailors. This action was for the recovery [173]*173of certain vests, delivered—the plaintiffs claim—to the defendants, to he made, and which they failed to return: The defendants denied retaining the vests without cause, claiming a lien upon them for services, and for the latter set up a counterclaim. Testimony was given at the trial as to how many vests were delivered, and how many were returned, and as to whether a demand had been made. After the case was submitted, however, a stipulation was altered into between the parties, waiving any and all objections to the evidence, and giving the justice “power to decide the entitled cause on the whole evidence, and render any judgment that he saw fit,” or, in effect, making the learned justice an arbiter of the whole controversy between the parties. In view of that stipulation, the appeal seems scarcely explicable.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the defendants. All concur.

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

MacLEAN, J.

The plaintiffs are manufacturers of clothing, and the defendants are contract tailors. This action was for the recovery [173]*173of certain vests, delivered—the plaintiffs claim—to the defendants, to he made, and which they failed to return: The defendants denied retaining the vests without cause, claiming a lien upon them for services, and for the latter set up a counterclaim. Testimony was given at the trial as to how many vests were delivered, and how many were returned, and as to whether a demand had been made. After the case was submitted, however, a stipulation was altered into between the parties, waiving any and all objections to the evidence, and giving the justice “power to decide the entitled cause on the whole evidence, and render any judgment that he saw fit,” or, in effect, making the learned justice an arbiter of the whole controversy between the parties. In view of that stipulation, the appeal seems scarcely explicable.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the defendants. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lipps-v-markowitz-nyappterm-1903.