Legal Opinion

Monnet v. Merz

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided May 2, 1892Published

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment entered on the report of a referee. The facts and points in the case appear fully in the opinion of the court. In the trial of the case the referee declined to allow to the defendant the whole of the claim but allowed him one-half, and defendant appealed from such ruling, and the general term sustained the referee (57 N. Y. Super.

Read the full summary

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment entered on the report of a referee. The facts and points in the case appear fully in the opinion of the court. In the trial of the case the referee declined to allow to the defendant the whole of the claim but allowed him one-half, and defendant appealed from such ruling, and the general term sustained the referee (57 N. Y. Super. Ct., 576), and the Court of Appeals modified the judgment by striking out the allowance of one-half made by the referee, Monnet v. Merz, 127 2V. Y., 151. The plaintiff now appeals from the judgment entered upon the report of the…

1Per curiam

The action is virtually for an accounting between the plaintiff, a foreign consignor, and the defendant, his consignee in this country. This appeal involves the correctness of a ruling which charged the appellant with the sum of $6,126.09. That charge arose from the following facts. The plaintiff consigned certain goods to the defendant. After they had arrived in the country, the United States began a suit against the defendant to recover $75,000, under sections 2839-2864, U. 8. Rev. 8tat., and section 16, Act of June 22, 1874. On February 9,1883, the United States accepted from the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Monnet v. . MerzNew York Court of Appeals · 1891

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

Powered by the Exa API