Starr v. Ritchie

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Starr v. Ritchie

84 N.Y.S. 917

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 18, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 917 (Starr v. Ritchie) 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

Starr v. Ritchie, 84 N.Y.S. 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The award of damages was inadequate where tested by the apparent probabilities as to the defendant’s express or implied promise to pay for the item of resetting, and the presiding justice’s estimate of the relative credibility of two opposed witnesses upon the issue of an express agreement may well have led to the further strengthening of the case for the plaintiff. The advantages possessed by the justice below in hearing the - testimony as given enters to some extent into the inquiry upon a review of his direction of a new trial after verdict (Lund v. Spencer, 42 App. Div. 543, 59 N. Y. Supp. 752), and the order is not to be disturbed unless actual and obvious injustice has resulted from this exercise of discretion at the trial (Id.). It appears to us that there was not only no injustice to the defendant in this case, but that the trial justice’s discretion was quite commendably exercised.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The award of damages was inadequate where tested by the apparent probabilities as to the defendant’s express or implied promise to pay for the item of resetting, and the presiding justice’s estimate of the relative credibility of two opposed witnesses upon the issue of an express agreement may well have led to the further strengthening of the case for the plaintiff. The advantages possessed by the justice below in hearing the - testimony as given enters to some extent into the inquiry upon a review of his direction of a new trial after verdict (Lund v. Spencer, 42 App. Div. 543, 59 N. Y. Supp. 752), and the order is not to be disturbed unless actual and obvious injustice has resulted from this exercise of discretion at the trial (Id.). It appears to us that there was not only no injustice to the defendant in this case, but that the trial justice’s discretion was quite commendably exercised.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starr-v-ritchie-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack