Weismantle v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weismantle v. State

229 A.D. 824

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1930

DocketClaim No. 13788

StatusPublished

This text of 229 A.D. 824 (Weismantle v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Weismantle v. State, 229 A.D. 824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The amount of land affected by loss of fertilization was a question of fact. The court allowed damages to fifteen acres. Appellant on the argument insisted that it amounted to twenty-seven and sixty-two one-hundredths acres. As we read the testimony of plaintiff’s witness Crocker, we think that the trial court was justified in finding that no more than half of the twenty-seven and sixty-two one-hundredths acres was affected. During the giving of the testimony of the witness Crocker, there was an apparent assent of counsel and the court, as indicated by the latter’s statement “ that one-half of this twenty-seven and sixty-two one-hundredths acres was the damage that had been done to the claimant’s farm by reason of this damage in the flow of water.” All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Edgcomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The amount of land affected by loss of fertilization was a question of fact. The court allowed damages to fifteen acres. Appellant on the argument insisted that it amounted to twenty-seven and sixty-two one-hundredths acres. As we read the testimony of plaintiff’s witness Crocker, we think that the trial court was justified in finding that no more than half of the twenty-seven and sixty-two one-hundredths acres was affected. During the giving of the testimony of the witness Crocker, there was an apparent assent of counsel and the court, as indicated by the latter’s statement “ that one-half of this twenty-seven and sixty-two one-hundredths acres was the damage that had been done to the claimant’s farm by reason of this damage in the flow of water.” All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Edgcomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D. 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weismantle-v-state-nyappdiv-1930.