Seligman v. Linder

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Seligman v. Linder

117 N.Y.S. 192, 1909 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 630

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 12, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 117 N.Y.S. 192 (Seligman v. Linder) 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

Seligman v. Linder, 117 N.Y.S. 192, 1909 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

DAYTON, J.

Plaintiff’s claim is that in June defendant agreed to pay him $450 for certain deeds, releases, and discontinuances to save delay, receivership fees, and further expenses of foreclosure. The papers procured by him, if from the proper parties and in proper form, are variously dated from June until the following September, and were not availed of. The record discloses ample justification for the opinion of the trial judge that the verdict was against the weight of •evidence, and should have been for the defendant. This seems so clear that his refusal to set it aside cannot be sustained. It may be said, in addition, that the verdict for $250 was a compromise. Plaintiff was entitled to $450 or nothing.

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

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

DAYTON, J.

Plaintiff’s claim is that in June defendant agreed to pay him $450 for certain deeds, releases, and discontinuances to save delay, receivership fees, and further expenses of foreclosure. The papers procured by him, if from the proper parties and in proper form, are variously dated from June until the following September, and were not availed of. The record discloses ample justification for the opinion of the trial judge that the verdict was against the weight of •evidence, and should have been for the defendant. This seems so clear that his refusal to set it aside cannot be sustained. It may be said, in addition, that the verdict for $250 was a compromise. Plaintiff was entitled to $450 or nothing.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 N.Y.S. 192, 1909 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seligman-v-linder-nyappterm-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack