Schnitzler v. Oriental Metal Bed Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Schnitzler v. Oriental Metal Bed Co.

47 Misc. 356, 93 N.Y.S. 1119

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 47 Misc. 356 (Schnitzler v. Oriental Metal Bed 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

Schnitzler v. Oriental Metal Bed Co., 47 Misc. 356, 93 N.Y.S. 1119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Scott, J.

The motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence should have been granted. The plaintiff’s ease was extremely weak and suspicious. Very possibly the evidence first learned of by defendant after the trial would, if presented at the trial, have changed the result. It is true that it is in a sense cumulative, or mo-re properly corroborative of witnesses who- were produced, but this is not necessarily fatal to the motion. Vollkommer v. Nassau El. R. R. Co., 23 App. Div. 88. The object of the court must always he to- reach a just result, and when as in the present case the verdict rested alone upon the plaintiff’s unsupported and very contradictory evidence, which was met at every point by a -number of witnesses, few of whom seemed to he interested, we think that the general rule as to granting a new trial for the introduction of cumulative evidence may well be disregarded. We are unable to- see that [357]*357the defendant was guilty of any laches in preparing for trial.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

Truax and Dowling, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

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

Scott, J.

The motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence should have been granted. The plaintiff’s ease was extremely weak and suspicious. Very possibly the evidence first learned of by defendant after the trial would, if presented at the trial, have changed the result. It is true that it is in a sense cumulative, or mo-re properly corroborative of witnesses who- were produced, but this is not necessarily fatal to the motion. Vollkommer v. Nassau El. R. R. Co., 23 App. Div. 88. The object of the court must always he to- reach a just result, and when as in the present case the verdict rested alone upon the plaintiff’s unsupported and very contradictory evidence, which was met at every point by a -number of witnesses, few of whom seemed to he interested, we think that the general rule as to granting a new trial for the introduction of cumulative evidence may well be disregarded. We are unable to- see that [357]*357the defendant was guilty of any laches in preparing for trial.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

Truax and Dowling, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 Misc. 356, 93 N.Y.S. 1119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schnitzler-v-oriental-metal-bed-co-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack