Vanderbeck v. Armstrong

14 N.Y. St. Rep. 927

New York Supreme Court·Decided February 13, 1888·Published

Opinion

Pratt, J.

The questions are purely of fact and have been passed upon by the referee who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.

If there is any preponderance of evidence against the plaintiff it is not such as warrants interference with the judgment.

The voluminous evidence has evidently been carefully considered, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J., concur.

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

Pratt, J.

The questions are purely of fact and have been passed upon by the referee who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.

If there is any preponderance of evidence against the plaintiff it is not such as warrants interference with the judgment.

The voluminous evidence has evidently been carefully considered, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J., concur.

Vanderbeck v. Armstrong, 14 N.Y. St. Rep. 927 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

14 N.Y. St. Rep. 927 (Vanderbeck v. Armstrong) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.