Rogers v. Bowerman

21 F. 284, 22 Blatchf. 462, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2373
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedAugust 22, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 F. 284 (Rogers v. Bowerman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rogers v. Bowerman, 21 F. 284, 22 Blatchf. 462, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2373 (circtsdny 1884).

Opinion

Wallace, J.

The plaintiffs ask leave to remit part of the amount for which the verdict in this case, by direction of the court, was rendered in their favor. The result, if such a reduction of the judgment to be entered is permitted, would be to reduce the judgment below the sum of $5,000, and thereby preclude the defendants from a review by writ of error to the supreme court. Undoubtedly, it is competent for the trial court, in the exercise of judicial discretion, to allow such a reduction to be made; but such a discretion should be very carefully and sparingly exercised. Certainly, this is not a case where the court should willingly deprive the defendants of an opportunity to review the decision. As is said in Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694, 696, “if the object of the reduction is to deprive an appellate court of jurisdiction in a meritorious case, it is to be presumed the trial court will not allow it to be done.” It is far from clear that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, and a verdict was directed for them with grave doubt as to the correctness of the conclusions reached by the court. It is a peculiarly meritorious case for the consideration of the appellate court.

The motion of the plaintiffs is denied.

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

Related

Stuart v. City of St. Paul
63 F. 644 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 F. 284, 22 Blatchf. 462, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-bowerman-circtsdny-1884.