R. E. Dietz & Co. v. Miller, Sears & Walling Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

R. E. Dietz & Co. v. Miller, Sears & Walling Co.

84 N.Y.S. 510

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 6, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 510 (R. E. Dietz & Co. v. Miller, Sears & Walling Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

R. E. Dietz & Co. v. Miller, Sears & Walling Co., 84 N.Y.S. 510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In no aspect of the proof can the state of the account between the parties be made to result in the amount for which judgment was rendered, and the question is substantial, because of the offer of judgment, and the consequent difference in costs which must follow from an error in the computation. The justice’s indorsement on the summons shows that the offer of judgment was made, and, if there be any question of its form, that question should be presented by the return,.if we are to pass upon it. The filing of an offer is indicated of record, and, the paper not being annexed to the "return, we cannot assume that the offer ivas invalid, and thus disregard the error in the judgment on the ground of immateriality.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

In no aspect of the proof can the state of the account between the parties be made to result in the amount for which judgment was rendered, and the question is substantial, because of the offer of judgment, and the consequent difference in costs which must follow from an error in the computation. The justice’s indorsement on the summons shows that the offer of judgment was made, and, if there be any question of its form, that question should be presented by the return,.if we are to pass upon it. The filing of an offer is indicated of record, and, the paper not being annexed to the "return, we cannot assume that the offer ivas invalid, and thus disregard the error in the judgment on the ground of immateriality.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-e-dietz-co-v-miller-sears-walling-co-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack