Taylor v. Betsford

13 Johns. 487
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1816
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 13 Johns. 487 (Taylor v. Betsford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Taylor v. Betsford, 13 Johns. 487 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only error necessary to be noticed in this case is, that the justice went into the room with the jury, at their request, privately and apart from the parties, to answer certain questions proposed to him by the jury. This we have repeatedly held t'o be erroneous, unless done with the consent of the parties. Whether the information given by the justice were material, or had any influence upon the verdict of the jury, is a matter which we will not inquire into. In the present case, it cannot fairly be inferred that the plaintiff in error gave his consent,unless from the circumstance that he knew that the justice was going in to the jury, and did not object. But this is not enough. The practice is dangerous and improper, and ought to be guarded against; and the consent ought riot to be matter of inference, as it may be liable to great abuse : it ought to appear affirmatively that it was done with the consent of parties. If they are present, it may be easily ascertained whether they will give it or not, and then the door will be shut against abuse, by reason of misunderstanding, or wrong conclusions drawn from circumstances ; and, upon this ground, the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Finn Hannevig & Co. v. Frankel
219 A.D. 54 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1926)
Boerum v. Seymour Realty Co.
127 Misc. 577 (New York County Courts, 1926)
Jenss v. Harrod
100 Misc. 624 (New York County Courts, 1917)
People v. Bowers
111 N.Y.S. 623 (Steuben County Court, 1908)
Otto v. Young
43 Misc. 628 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
Welker v. Allen
39 Misc. 523 (New York County Courts, 1902)
Hudson v. Stearns
75 N.Y.S. 735 (New York County Courts, 1901)
Abbott v. Hockenberger
31 Misc. 587 (New York County Courts, 1900)
Commonwealth v. House
6 Pa. Super. 92 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1897)
State v. Wroth
47 P. 106 (Washington Supreme Court, 1896)
Horrman v. Neuman
15 Misc. 449 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1896)
Kehrley v. Shafer
36 N.Y.S. 510 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
High v. Chick
30 N.Y.S. 652 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
People v. Linzey
29 N.Y.S. 560 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Gibbons v. Van Alstyne
9 N.Y.S. 156 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)
Valentine v. Kelly
7 N.Y.S. 184 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)
Cornish v. Graff
43 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 160 (New York Supreme Court, 1885)
The People v. . Kelly
94 N.Y. 526 (New York Court of Appeals, 1884)
Wiggins v. Downer
67 How. Pr. 65 (New York Supreme Court, 1884)
People v. Kelly
38 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 225 (New York Supreme Court, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Johns. 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-betsford-nysupct-1816.