Manning v. Monaghan
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Superior Court of the city of New York. The action was brought to recover damages on account of the seizure and sale of certain household furniture, which one Schenck had mortgaged to the plaintiff. The mortgage was given to secure $1,070, payable in one year, with a provision that until default, ■ the mortgagor should continue in the full possession and enjoyment of the goods.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of the city of New York. The action was brought to recover damages on account of the seizure and sale of certain household furniture, which one Schenck had mortgaged to the plaintiff. The mortgage was given to secure $1,070, payable in one year, with a provision that until default, ■ the mortgagor should continue in the full possession and enjoyment of the goods. Within the year the defendant, Monaghan, recovered a judgment against Schenck, and on the execution being returned unsatisfiéd, he instituted proceedings supplementary to the execution, which resulted…
1Opinion of the CourtDenio, J.
I am of opinion that the judgment of the Superior Court should be reversed, on the ground that the case has not been tried in the manner contemplated by the law regulating the practice of the court. It will be perceived that, although there was a jury trial, there was no verdict of the jury, general or special. That there was not a general verdict is manifest, for the jury were not allowed to say whether the plaintiff should recover or not. In a general verdict the jury pronounce generally upon all or any of the issues, either in favor of the plaintiff or defendant. (Oode, §260.) A special…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Goulet v. . AsselerNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Hull v. . CarnleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Cobb v. . CornishNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ziehen v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Hayes v. . NourseNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Drake v. ShielsNew York Supreme Court · 1889