Van Steenburgh v. Hoffman

New York Supreme Court

Van Steenburgh v. Hoffman

6 How. Pr. 492

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1852

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 How. Pr. 492 (Van Steenburgh v. Hoffman) 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

Van Steenburgh v. Hoffman, 6 How. Pr. 492 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1852).

Pincite

Opinion

Hand, Justice.

This was an action to recover money only, and in such cases, the jury in their discretion, may render a general or special verdict {Code, § 261). But .the court may require the jury “ to find upon particular questions of fact” {id). And this finding controls the general verdict {id. § 262). It is not necessary, in this case, to decide whether the court, where a trial by jury is waived, may make a general decision, without finding all the issues, separately. In strictness, as I understand the old practice, although in many cases, a general verdict was taken; yet, particularly where there were different causes of action, or where the finding upon one issue did not necessarily dispose of all of the rest, the issues were, as a general rule, all passed upon (1 Burr. Pr. 236; Van Benthuysen vs. DeWitt, 4 J. R. 213; Graves vs. Morley, 3 Lev. 55; Patterson vs. U. S., 2 Wheat. R. 22; Hanna vs. Mills, 21 Wend. 90; Boynton vs. Page, 13 id. 425; 3 Chitt. Gen. Pr. 476-7; and see Moore vs. Butlin, 7 Ad. & E. 595; 1 Saund. R. 27, 28, n. d., 6 ed.). That would seem to be correct practice under our new system of pleading. [493]*493If desired by either party, on a trial by the court, surely the material facts should be stated (and see the practice under the new system of pleading in England, 3 Chitt, Gen• Pr. 919, 921). But however that may be, the referee must state all the material facts put in issue and found by him. The unsuccessful party has a right to have these, as well as his conclusions of law, placed upon the record {Code, §272, 281, 348).

Where all the issues are referred, the prevailing party need not give notice of the report, or furnish a copy of it. Judgment is of course {Code, §278, 272).

Perhaps the report could be amended, nunc pro tunc, but this might deprive the defendant of his appeal. The report must be corrected, and a new judgment can then be entered up thereupon.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Hand, Justice.

This was an action to recover money only, and in such cases, the jury in their discretion, may render a general or special verdict {Code, § 261). But .the court may require the jury “ to find upon particular questions of fact” {id). And this finding controls the general verdict {id. § 262). It is not necessary, in this case, to decide whether the court, where a trial by jury is waived, may make a general decision, without finding all the issues, separately. In strictness, as I understand the old practice, although in many cases, a general verdict was taken; yet, particularly where there were different causes of action, or where the finding upon one issue did not necessarily dispose of all of the rest, the issues were, as a general rule, all passed upon (1 Burr. Pr. 236; Van Benthuysen vs. DeWitt, 4 J. R. 213; Graves vs. Morley, 3 Lev. 55; Patterson vs. U. S., 2 Wheat. R. 22; Hanna vs. Mills, 21 Wend. 90; Boynton vs. Page, 13 id. 425; 3 Chitt. Gen. Pr. 476-7; and see Moore vs. Butlin, 7 Ad. & E. 595; 1 Saund. R. 27, 28, n. d., 6 ed.). That would seem to be correct practice under our new system of pleading. [493]*493If desired by either party, on a trial by the court, surely the material facts should be stated (and see the practice under the new system of pleading in England, 3 Chitt, Gen• Pr. 919, 921). But however that may be, the referee must state all the material facts put in issue and found by him. The unsuccessful party has a right to have these, as well as his conclusions of law, placed upon the record {Code, §272, 281, 348).

Where all the issues are referred, the prevailing party need not give notice of the report, or furnish a copy of it. Judgment is of course {Code, §278, 272).

Perhaps the report could be amended, nunc pro tunc, but this might deprive the defendant of his appeal. The report must be corrected, and a new judgment can then be entered up thereupon.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 How. Pr. 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-steenburgh-v-hoffman-nysupct-1852.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack