Thompson v. Menck
New York Court of Appeals
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court of the third district, reversing a judgment in his favor and ordering a new trial. The action was brought to recover a balance alleged to be due him from the defendant for the purchase price of a quantity of bones sold by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Read the full summary
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court of the third district, reversing a judgment in his favor and ordering a new trial. The action was brought to recover a balance alleged to be due him from the defendant for the purchase price of a quantity of bones sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The cause was tried by a referee, who reported in favor of the plaintiff and found the following facts: In 1856, the defendant was a manufacturer of, and a dealer in, animal charcoal, in the city of New York. The plaintiff was at the same time a dealer in bones, and also in…
1Opinion of the CourtPotter, J.
It was not stated in the judgment or order of reversal of the General Term, that the judgment on the report of the referee was reversed on the questions of fact. Section 268 of the Code declares, “ that it shall not be deemed to have been reversed on questions of fact, unless so stated in the judgment of reversal.” This court cannot avoid this statute, how much soever they might be impressed ' with the injustice of the finding of the facts below. We have so distinctly held, twice, during this year, and have denied two motions for leave to send the case back that the *85court below might amend…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Deobold v. . OppermannNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Van Woert v. . Albany Susquehanna R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Prosser v. First National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Warren Chemical & Manufacturing Co. v. HolbrookNew York Supreme Court · 1887