Bulkeley v. Smith
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal by the defendants, Smith & Brush, from a judgment and order at special term, denying to them a new trial upon exceptions taken on the trial, and also upon the ground that the verdict was against evidence. The action is for a malicious prosecution, and in its original form was not only against the present defendants, Smith & Brush, but also against Eugene Keteltas & Wm.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the defendants, Smith & Brush, from a judgment and order at special term, denying to them a new trial upon exceptions taken on the trial, and also upon the ground that the verdict was against evidence. The action is for a malicious prosecution, and in its original form was not only against the present defendants, Smith & Brush, but also against Eugene Keteltas & Wm. A. Keteltas, and was first tried before Mr. Justice Vanderpoel and a jury in December, 1849, when the jury found a verdict against Smith, Brush & E. Keteltas for $3,750, and under'the direction of the judge acquitted Wm.…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Duer, J.
Whether the judgmént, which, in *271this case, has been rendered against both the defendants for the heavy damages which were found by the jury only against one of them, is erroneous on its face, we shall not at this time attempt to determine. We own, that hitherto we have not been able to discern the equity or good sense of the doctrine, that the plaintiff in an action for a tort, when the jury have improperly severed the damages, may enter his judgment against all the defendants for the largest damages that are given; and, as at present advised, if the conflict of the authorities is such as to…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Ball v. RawlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- McKown v. . HunterNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Pennsylvania Co. v. WeddleIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Hess v. Oregon Baking Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1897
- Grant v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.