Wheeling Corrugating Co. v. Armstrong

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Wheeling Corrugating Co. v. Armstrong

97 N.Y.S. 960

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 27, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 97 N.Y.S. 960 (Wheeling Corrugating Co. v. Armstrong) 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

Wheeling Corrugating Co. v. Armstrong, 97 N.Y.S. 960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

BER CURIAM.

A new trial. is sought on the ground, among others, of the alleged discovery since the trial that the sum of $245.64 was paid to the plaintiff, instead of the sum of $126.68, as was claimed upon the trial by the plaintiff; the difference between these sums being greater than the amount sued for. The papers submitted fail to show that such evidence could not have been obtained upon the former trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence. The defendant Anderson in his affidavit states that, on November 2, 1905, he learned for the first time that he was a defendant in this action, but it appears from the opposing affidavits, without contradiction on his part, that he was present at the trial of this action which took place on October 30th last.

We are satisfied, after reading the papers submitted, that the motion was properly disposed of by the justice.

Order affirmed, with costs.

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

BER CURIAM.

A new trial. is sought on the ground, among others, of the alleged discovery since the trial that the sum of $245.64 was paid to the plaintiff, instead of the sum of $126.68, as was claimed upon the trial by the plaintiff; the difference between these sums being greater than the amount sued for. The papers submitted fail to show that such evidence could not have been obtained upon the former trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence. The defendant Anderson in his affidavit states that, on November 2, 1905, he learned for the first time that he was a defendant in this action, but it appears from the opposing affidavits, without contradiction on his part, that he was present at the trial of this action which took place on October 30th last.

We are satisfied, after reading the papers submitted, that the motion was properly disposed of by the justice.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 N.Y.S. 960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheeling-corrugating-co-v-armstrong-nyappterm-1906.