Place v. Hayward

Superior Court of New York

Place v. Hayward

5 N.Y.S. 959, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2780

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJanuary 7, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 5 N.Y.S. 959 (Place v. Hayward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Place v. Hayward, 5 N.Y.S. 959, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2780 (superctny 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The facts of this case are so voluminous that justice cannot be done to them in a brief statement, and an extensive discussion of them, such as would be necessary if the attempt should be made to discuss them at length, involves an amount of labor wholly disproportionate to the benefits to be derived therefrom. We therefore content ourselves with this statement, viz.: The whole case has been carefully examined. It discloses no error in the admission or exclusion of evidence which constitutes ground for reversal. All the material facts found by the referee are supported by evidences, and no reasons appear why they, or any of them, should be disturbed. These facts support the principal conclusion of law, that the defendant is entitled to judgment dismissing the complaint with costs. There is no error in the referee’s refusals to find. Upon full consideration of all the points raised, we can see no reason for interfering with the judgment. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The facts of this case are so voluminous that justice cannot be done to them in a brief statement, and an extensive discussion of them, such as would be necessary if the attempt should be made to discuss them at length, involves an amount of labor wholly disproportionate to the benefits to be derived therefrom. We therefore content ourselves with this statement, viz.: The whole case has been carefully examined. It discloses no error in the admission or exclusion of evidence which constitutes ground for reversal. All the material facts found by the referee are supported by evidences, and no reasons appear why they, or any of them, should be disturbed. These facts support the principal conclusion of law, that the defendant is entitled to judgment dismissing the complaint with costs. There is no error in the referee’s refusals to find. Upon full consideration of all the points raised, we can see no reason for interfering with the judgment. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 N.Y.S. 959, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/place-v-hayward-superctny-1889.