Grant v. Root
New York Supreme Court
’^'HE defendants having obtained a verdict, entered their rule for judgment, and, after the lapse of four days thereafter taxed their costs ; and then, before the record was filed, the plaintiff obtained an order to stay proceedings, from the Recorder of Albany, with a view to move for a new trial, on account of newly discovered evidence; and on a mo- . , r, tt n , , . , , tion by L. trl.
Read the full summary
’^'HE defendants having obtained a verdict, entered their rule for judgment, and, after the lapse of four days thereafter taxed their costs ; and then, before the record was filed, the plaintiff obtained an order to stay proceedings, from the Recorder of Albany, with a view to move for a new trial, on account of newly discovered evidence; and on a mo- . , r, tt n , , . , , tion by L. trl. Haggles, which was opposed by J. Sudam, one fiuest*on was, whether this order was regular; and
1Opinion of the CourtSutherland, J.
said, the judgment was perfect after 4 ;1 , . , days, though the record was not filed ; so that no order cou^ be granted by a single Judge, or commissioner; to which the other Justices agreed ; but,
Curiam.
As here has been a misapprehension of the Prac^ce’ by the plaintiff’s attorney, and he has proceeded in good faith, andas there is probable cause for a new trial, we se* as’^e the defendants’ proceedings, on payment of costs, and let the plaintiff in to move for a new trial, in the same manner as if he had proceeded regularly, for that purpose, in the first instance.
Rule accordingly.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Tucker v. WhiteNew York Supreme Court · 1862
- Bauman v. New-York Central RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1854