McCullough v. Brodie

6 Duer 659
CourtThe Superior Court of New York City
DecidedDecember 15, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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.

Bluebook
McCullough v. Brodie, 6 Duer 659 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1856).

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

McLean v. East River Insurance
8 Bosw. 700 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Duer 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccullough-v-brodie-nysuperctnyc-1856.