Parker-Smith v. Prince Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parker-Smith v. Prince Manufacturing Co.

166 A.D. 939, 151 N.Y.S. 1135

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D. 939 (Parker-Smith v. Prince Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parker-Smith v. Prince Manufacturing Co., 166 A.D. 939, 151 N.Y.S. 1135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Without expressing an opinion as to plaintiff’s right to recover under the contract of January 3, 1911, or whether, before any suit had been begun against the Nassau Trust Company or other banking institution, plaintiff’s compensation was limited to $500, we think, in view of the manner in which the verdict was directed, that the judgment must be reversed. The court directed a verdict of $7,935.25, and then reduced it to $606, which dispositions were so united as to be a single act, and one which required consent of both parties. Against the exception of plaintiff’s counsel the verdict could not be thus reduced by the court after it had been once directed. Plaintiff’s notice of appeal seeks to review only the court’s order or direction reducing the verdict, but as no separate order was entered, this reduction, apart from the direction of the verdict, cannot be separately reviewed. We, therefore, restore the parties to their original positions, by a reversal of the judgment, with a new trial, costs of this appeal to abide the event. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

Without expressing an opinion as to plaintiff’s right to recover under the contract of January 3, 1911, or whether, before any suit had been begun against the Nassau Trust Company or other banking institution, plaintiff’s compensation was limited to $500, we think, in view of the manner in which the verdict was directed, that the judgment must be reversed. The court directed a verdict of $7,935.25, and then reduced it to $606, which dispositions were so united as to be a single act, and one which required consent of both parties. Against the exception of plaintiff’s counsel the verdict could not be thus reduced by the court after it had been once directed. Plaintiff’s notice of appeal seeks to review only the court’s order or direction reducing the verdict, but as no separate order was entered, this reduction, apart from the direction of the verdict, cannot be separately reviewed. We, therefore, restore the parties to their original positions, by a reversal of the judgment, with a new trial, costs of this appeal to abide the event. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D. 939, 151 N.Y.S. 1135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-smith-v-prince-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1915.