Mutual Milk & Cream Co. v. Tietjen

New York Supreme Court

Mutual Milk & Cream Co. v. Tietjen

89 N.Y.S. 391

DecidedApril 15, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 89 N.Y.S. 391 (Mutual Milk & Cream Co. v. Tietjen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mutual Milk & Cream Co. v. Tietjen, 89 N.Y.S. 391 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

GIEGERICH, J.

Decision settled and delivered to the clerk. Let an engrossed copy be made and presented for signature. The attorney for the defendant has submitted certain written requests for findings of fact and rulings upon questions of law which he insists should be made. These have been presented under an erroneous theory that the practice relative to requests to find, as formerly established by section 1033 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was restored when section 1033 was re-enacted in 1903 substantially in its original form. It will be seen, however, upon examination, that section 1033 was repealed by chapter 688, p. 1719, Laws 1894, and that it was not restored by the amendment of 1903 to section 1033, which amendment only re[392]*392pealed the innovation introduced by the amendment of 1894 of allowing a decision to state “concisely the grounds upon which the issues have been decided,” and practically restored that section to its original form. Section 1023 was not re-enacted nor restored, however, and there is now no requirement that the court note in the margin of the requests or statement of propositions the manner in which they have been disposed of, and I can discover no exceptional features in this case which would render it useful to depart from the regular practice now prevailing..

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

GIEGERICH, J.

Decision settled and delivered to the clerk. Let an engrossed copy be made and presented for signature. The attorney for the defendant has submitted certain written requests for findings of fact and rulings upon questions of law which he insists should be made. These have been presented under an erroneous theory that the practice relative to requests to find, as formerly established by section 1033 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was restored when section 1033 was re-enacted in 1903 substantially in its original form. It will be seen, however, upon examination, that section 1033 was repealed by chapter 688, p. 1719, Laws 1894, and that it was not restored by the amendment of 1903 to section 1033, which amendment only re[392]*392pealed the innovation introduced by the amendment of 1894 of allowing a decision to state “concisely the grounds upon which the issues have been decided,” and practically restored that section to its original form. Section 1023 was not re-enacted nor restored, however, and there is now no requirement that the court note in the margin of the requests or statement of propositions the manner in which they have been disposed of, and I can discover no exceptional features in this case which would render it useful to depart from the regular practice now prevailing..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 N.Y.S. 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mutual-milk-cream-co-v-tietjen-nysupct-1904.