Eames Vacuum Brake Co. v. Prosser
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from judgment on report of referee. Action by the Eames Vacuum Brake Company against Thomas Prosser and another. Prom a judgment for plaintiff and an order granting it an additional allowance, defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtHardin, P. J.
Defendants requested the referee to find that the settlement agreement omitted a provision to the effect that they might retain commissions as agents under the agreement of January, 1877, “by inadvertence and the mutual mistake of the parties thereto.” There was, at most, a conflict in the evidence upon that subject, and there was not such a preponderance of evidence in favor of defendants as to warrant the conclusion that the refusal of the referee to so find was erroneous. Besides, where it appears, as by some of the evidence it does appear, that the contract is as one of the parties…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McCreery v. . DayNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Ryan v. . WardNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Stenton v. . JeromeNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Hills v. SommerNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Paine v. . JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hodges v. TruaxIndiana Court of Appeals · 1898
- Preston v. HowkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Preston v. HowkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896