McCullough v. Brodie
This text of 6 Duer 659 (McCullough v. Brodie) 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.
Opinion
An action cannot be referred, except by consent of parties, merely because the trial of it will require proof of various small items of damage. To justify a compulsory reference, the trial must involve “the examination of a long account on either side,” according to the ordinary acceptation of the word account.
The only fact which authorizes a compulsory reference is the same, under the Code, as when the Revised Statutes alone gave the power to refer. (2 R. S. 384, § 40; Code, § 211, sub. 1; 19 Wend. 31; 25 id. 681; 6 id. 603; Van Rensselaer and others v. Jewett, 6 Hill, 313.) This case is reported in 13 How. Pr. R. 346.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
6 Duer 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccullough-v-brodie-nysuperctnyc-1856.