Whitehill Engine & Pictet Ice Mach. Co. v. Binz

New York Supreme Court

Whitehill Engine & Pictet Ice Mach. Co. v. Binz

31 N.Y.S. 1135, 90 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 613, 64 N.Y. St. Rep. 883

DecidedDecember 10, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 31 N.Y.S. 1135 (Whitehill Engine & Pictet Ice Mach. Co. v. Binz) 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

Whitehill Engine & Pictet Ice Mach. Co. v. Binz, 31 N.Y.S. 1135, 90 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 613, 64 N.Y. St. Rep. 883 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff after a trial at the circuit, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the minutes of the court. The action was brought for the recovery of machinery, pipes, and other articles which had been used in a brewery at Ft. Hamilton. The ownership of the property was in the plaintiff, and that fact was undisputed. The principal question litigated has reference to the demand and refusal to deliver the property. That question was submitted to the jury, and must have been decided in favor of the plaintiff, and there is evidence sufficient to support the verdict upon that point. The same thing may be said respecting the damages, and as we find no error in the record, the judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

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

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff after a trial at the circuit, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the minutes of the court. The action was brought for the recovery of machinery, pipes, and other articles which had been used in a brewery at Ft. Hamilton. The ownership of the property was in the plaintiff, and that fact was undisputed. The principal question litigated has reference to the demand and refusal to deliver the property. That question was submitted to the jury, and must have been decided in favor of the plaintiff, and there is evidence sufficient to support the verdict upon that point. The same thing may be said respecting the damages, and as we find no error in the record, the judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 N.Y.S. 1135, 90 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 613, 64 N.Y. St. Rep. 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitehill-engine-pictet-ice-mach-co-v-binz-nysupct-1894.