National Board of Marine Underwriters v. National Bank of the Republic
The Superior Court of New York City
The plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant, after a trial had before a referee, and both parties appealed; plaintiff, on the ground that the referee should have awarded <$4,914.62, instead of $2,803.27, the sum allowed; and defendant, on the ground that even the reduced sum was an excessive recovery.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant, after a trial had before a referee, and both parties appealed; plaintiff, on the ground that the referee should have awarded <$4,914.62, instead of $2,803.27, the sum allowed; and defendant, on the ground that even the reduced sum was an excessive recovery. The court determined (1) on the plaintiff’s appeal, that the judgment was not inadequate, and disposed of such appeal by affirming the judgment as against the plaintiff. (2) It determined on the defendant’s appeal that the judgment was excessive, and that it must be reversed and a new…
1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, J.
Although the referee reduced the plaintiff’s demand to $2,803.27, either party aggrieved by the decision had the right to appeal; the plaintiff for inadequacy, and the defendant because the judgment,- even in its reduced form, was excessive. (Code, § 1294). Such a right was sustained in Monnot v. Merz, 60 N. Y. Supr. Ct. R. 256; 43 St. Rep. 59; aff'd. by ct. of appeals, 131 N. Y. 646.
In that case as in this, the defendant claimed that, notwithstanding a deduction made in the plaintiff's demand by the referee, the judgment was still excessive. The court of appeals made a further deduction on…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Goodsell v. Western Union Telegraph Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Genet v. . DavenportNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Wallace v. Central Vt. R.New York Supreme Court · 1892