Heritage v. Hall
New York Supreme Court
THIS action was brought to recover for a stock of goods sold by the plaintiff’s,intestate to the defendants’ firm. The defendants pleaded payment, and upon the trial produced receipts which they contended were evidence of payment for the goods, and which the plaintiff claimed to have been payments on other accounts between the parties.
Read the full summary
THIS action was brought to recover for a stock of goods sold by the plaintiff’s,intestate to the defendants’ firm. The defendants pleaded payment, and upon the trial produced receipts which they contended were evidence of payment for the goods, and which the plaintiff claimed to have been payments on other accounts between the parties. On the part of the defense receipts were proven for $2150 in various sums, purporting to be “ to account of stock,” excepting one for $500 which purported to be for lease, good will &c. of store in 8th avenue. This last receipt was dated 1st April, 1854, and…
1Opinion of the Court
*349By the Court,
Ingraham, J.
Ordinarily, in questions of this kind, the submission of the evidence to the jury, and their finding upon it, is conclusive upon the parties. Courts are not to weigh the evidence as the jury does, and then say whether the verdict of a jury is in accordance with the opinion of the court. It is only where the verdict is clearly against the evidence, so that the court is led to the conclusion that the jury was improperly controlled by passion or prejudice, that the court should interfere. Where it is evident that the jury have mistaken the import of the testimony, and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Beckwith v. New-York Central RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1865
- Teeter v. TeeterNew York Supreme Court · 1892