Smith v. Smith

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Smith

32 Misc. 702, 65 N.Y.S. 497

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Misc. 702 (Smith v. Smith) 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

Smith v. Smith, 32 Misc. 702, 65 N.Y.S. 497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We cannot reconcile ourselves to the rulings of the court or the findings of the jury respecting the question of damages in this case. While the plaintiff was perhaps qualified to testify as to value, it was necessary to offer evidence touching the description, character and quantity of the chattels. All of this was susceptible of proof, as it appears the plaintiff made an inventory of the contents of the store immediately before the sale. Teerpenning v. Corn Exchg. Ins. Co., 43 N. Y. 281. Nowhere in the case is there a specification of the goods. We think, therefore, it was prejudicial error to receive evidence of value without the requisite facts to support it. Apart from this error, there is no evidence in the case to justify as large a verdict as was given by the jury.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

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

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

Per Curiam.

We cannot reconcile ourselves to the rulings of the court or the findings of the jury respecting the question of damages in this case. While the plaintiff was perhaps qualified to testify as to value, it was necessary to offer evidence touching the description, character and quantity of the chattels. All of this was susceptible of proof, as it appears the plaintiff made an inventory of the contents of the store immediately before the sale. Teerpenning v. Corn Exchg. Ins. Co., 43 N. Y. 281. Nowhere in the case is there a specification of the goods. We think, therefore, it was prejudicial error to receive evidence of value without the requisite facts to support it. Apart from this error, there is no evidence in the case to justify as large a verdict as was given by the jury.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Misc. 702, 65 N.Y.S. 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-smith-nyappterm-1900.