Schultz v. Third Avenue Railroad
The Superior Court of New York City
This is an- appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial on three grounds, viz.: newly discovered evidence, surprise, and that the verdict was procured by conspiracy. This was an action to recover damages for certain injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by and through the negligence of the servants of the defendant.
Read the full summary
This is an- appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial on three grounds, viz.: newly discovered evidence, surprise, and that the verdict was procured by conspiracy. This was an action to recover damages for certain injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by and through the negligence of the servants of the defendant. It was tried in January, 1880, and resulted in a verdict of $15,000 for the plaintiff ; judgment was entered on this verdict; and from the judgment, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the minutes, the defendant- appeals. This appeal…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Truax, J.
1st and 2d. It is well settled that a new trial will not be granted for the sole purpose of enabling a party to impeach the witness of his opponent (Knoop v. Kammerer, 44 How. 449 ; People ex rel. Stemmler v. McGuire, 2 Hun, 269 ; Woolf v. Jacobs, 34 Super. Ct. 509 ; Chapman v. O’Brien, 39 Id. *287244 ; Bunn v. Hoyt, 3 Johns. 255 ; Duryea v. Dennison, 5 Id. 248 ; Fleming v. Hollenbeck, 7 Barb. 271; Sims v. Sims, 12 Hun, 231; Carpenter v. Coe, 67 Barb. 411).
3d. If the counsel for the defendant had used the diligence in looking for the witness, McMenamin, before the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Fleming v. HollenbackNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Bunn v. HoytNew York Supreme Court · 1808
- Messenger v. Fourth National BankNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1875
- Carpenter v. CoeNew York Supreme Court · 1873
- Darbee v. ElwoodNew York Supreme Court · 1874