Stannard v. . Hubbell
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made May 12,1890, which affirmed an order of Special Term in an equity action confirming the report of a referee, to whom, after interlocutory judgment had been entered in the action, it was referred to hear and determine whether a certain provision in a written contract, dated October 13, 1885, providing that “ Hubbell and Porter (defendants) are to pay fifteen hundred dollars as a…
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made May 12,1890, which affirmed an order of Special Term in an equity action confirming the report of a referee, to whom, after interlocutory judgment had been entered in the action, it was referred to hear and determine whether a certain provision in a written contract, dated October 13, 1885, providing that “ Hubbell and Porter (defendants) are to pay fifteen hundred dollars as a bonus to Captain Stannard (plaintiff) for taking charge of the breaking np of the ships,” had been abrogated. The…
1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, J.
If the amendment of the judgment in the former action changed the legal effect of the judgment as an estoppel upon the point involved in the present controversy, and it was necessary now to determine the question of the power of the court at Special Term to make the order of June 25, 1887, the question would perhaps be found to turn upon the point whether the amendment was made to correct an error on a reconsideration in the nature of a review of the decision rendered, or was made simply to conform the judgment to the decision actually rendered, but which, when formulated, failed, through…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Stowell v. . ChamberlainNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Webb v. . BuckelewNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Campbell v. . ConsalusNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Clark v. HallNew York Court of Chancery · 1839
- Genet v. President of Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1889
3Cited by58 opinions
- Herpe v. . HerpeNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Rudd v. . CornellNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Willis v. WillisWyoming Supreme Court · 1935
- Silberstein v. . SilbersteinNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Paulos v. JanetakosNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1942
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.