Neu v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad

113 A.D. 446, 99 N.Y.S. 290, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1451
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 1906·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The parties consented to try the issues as if in an action for money had and received. The attorneys under their agreement were entitled to one-half of the sum as adjusted. The sum paid in settlement as established by the Uncontradicted evidence is $450. This.must be taken as the basis of the attorneys’ claim (Pilkington v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 49 App. Div. 22), and, therefore, the judgment could not exceed seventy-five dollars. The judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, unless the plaintiffs'within twenty days consent to a reduction .thereof to seventy-five dollars without costs, in which case it is affirmed, without costs.

■ Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jerks, Hooker and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, Costs to abide the event, unless the plaintiffs within twenty days consent to a reduction of the recovery to seventy-five dollars without costs, in which case it’ is affirmed, without costs.

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

Neu v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad, 113 A.D. 446, 99 N.Y.S. 290, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

113 A.D. 446 (Neu v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schmitz v. South Cov. & Cin. St. Ry. Co.
114 S.W. 1197 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1909)