Seggermann v. Hillis Plantation Coffee Co.

The Superior Court of New York City

Seggermann v. Hillis Plantation Coffee Co.

29 Jones & S. 233, 47 N.Y. St. Rep. 936, 61 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 233

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJuly 5, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Jones & S. 233 (Seggermann v. Hillis Plantation Coffee Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seggermann v. Hillis Plantation Coffee Co., 29 Jones & S. 233, 47 N.Y. St. Rep. 936, 61 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 233 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.—Freedman, P. J.

The facts were determined by the referee upon conflicting testimony. The conflict between the witnesses of the respective parties was quite marked, and the result depended upon the credibility of the witnesses. The referee, in addition to hearing their statements, had the advantage of seeing them and observing the manner in which they gave their testimony. Upon the whole case as presented, the general term would not he justified in interfering with the decision of the referee on the ground that his findings were made against0 the weight of the evidence. Nor is there any merit in the claim that some facts found by him are not supported by evidence. The facts being as found, they support the conclusion of law based thereon, in conformity with which the judgment was entered.

I have also looked at the exceptions taken by the plaintiff to the rulings of the referee at the trial, but none of them presents ground for reversal.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Dugro and Gildersleeve, JJ., concurred.

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

By the Court.—Freedman, P. J.

The facts were determined by the referee upon conflicting testimony. The conflict between the witnesses of the respective parties was quite marked, and the result depended upon the credibility of the witnesses. The referee, in addition to hearing their statements, had the advantage of seeing them and observing the manner in which they gave their testimony. Upon the whole case as presented, the general term would not he justified in interfering with the decision of the referee on the ground that his findings were made against0 the weight of the evidence. Nor is there any merit in the claim that some facts found by him are not supported by evidence. The facts being as found, they support the conclusion of law based thereon, in conformity with which the judgment was entered.

I have also looked at the exceptions taken by the plaintiff to the rulings of the referee at the trial, but none of them presents ground for reversal.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Dugro and Gildersleeve, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Jones & S. 233, 47 N.Y. St. Rep. 936, 61 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seggermann-v-hillis-plantation-coffee-co-nysuperctnyc-1892.