Legal Opinion

Wallace v. . Berdell

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 8, 1885PublishedCited by 22 opinions

Motion to recall and amend remittitur etc. The case is reported in 98 N. Y. 480.

1Opinion of the CourtRaballo, J.

The opinion in this case on the motion for restitution, after holding that the remittitur should be amended by inserting a direction for the immediate restitution of the real estate in question, held that there should be inserted a further direction, that the mesne profits of said real estate, up to the time of such restitution, be ascertained and be paid by Ambrose S. Murray to Charles P. Berdell. (See 98 N. Y. 480.)

The order entered upon the decision of the motion, instead of following the words of the opinion, provided that the directions should be that “ the value of the rents and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Woodhull v. . RosenthalNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  2. Murray v. GouverneurNew York Supreme Court · 1800
  3. Murray v. . BerdellNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
  4. Dewey v. OsbornNew York Supreme Court · 1825

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Schleicher v. SchleicherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
  2. Lytle v. Payette-Oregon Slope Irrigation DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1944
  3. McDonald v. RankinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
  4. Forrester v. CookUtah Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn v. AltmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1937

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API