From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perkins v. Brainard Quarry Co.

New York Common Pleas — General Term
Feb 1, 1895
11 Misc. 337 (N.Y. Misc. 1895)

Summary

In Perkins v. Brainard Quarry Company, 11 Misc. 337, the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas held that where a motion was made at Special Term for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, based upon affidavits and a case made and settled, "that it must be regarded as having been made on a case within the purview of the abovecited provisions of the Code."

Summary of this case from Davis v. Grand Rapids Ins. Co.

Opinion

February, 1895.

W.T. Birdsall, for appellant.

Jacob Fromme, for respondent.


This action was brought for the recovery of broker's commissions alleged to have been earned by plaintiff's assignor, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. Upon the coming in of the same the plaintiff made a motion for a new trial upon the minutes, which was denied. Thereafter another application was made at Special Term, based on the settled case herein, and affidavits and papers theretofore served, upon grounds of surprise and newly-discovered evidence, which was denied, with costs. The clerk having taxed the costs at ten dollars, the defendant moved for a retaxation, contending that by section 3251 of the Code it is entitled to the same costs as upon an appeal. The court below sustained the contention and ordered a retaxation; from which order the plaintiff has appealed.

Subdivision 3 of section 3251 of the Code, among other things, provides that upon a motion for a new trial upon a case the same sums as upon appeal shall be allowed.

The plaintiff's motion at Special Term was based, among other things, "on the settled case herein," and it may, therefore, be regarded as having been made " on a case" within the purview of the above-cited provisions of the Code. Consequently, when the motion was denied the defendant became entitled to the same costs as upon an appeal. Wilcox v. Daggett, 15 Wkly. Dig. 208; Atkinson v. Truesdell, 7 N.Y.S. 801.

For these reasons the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

BOOKSTAVER and BISCHOFF, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Perkins v. Brainard Quarry Co.

New York Common Pleas — General Term
Feb 1, 1895
11 Misc. 337 (N.Y. Misc. 1895)

In Perkins v. Brainard Quarry Company, 11 Misc. 337, the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas held that where a motion was made at Special Term for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, based upon affidavits and a case made and settled, "that it must be regarded as having been made on a case within the purview of the abovecited provisions of the Code."

Summary of this case from Davis v. Grand Rapids Ins. Co.
Case details for

Perkins v. Brainard Quarry Co.

Case Details

Full title:FRANK P. PERKINS, Appellant, v . THE BRAINARD QUARRY CO., Respondent

Court:New York Common Pleas — General Term

Date published: Feb 1, 1895

Citations

11 Misc. 337 (N.Y. Misc. 1895)
32 N.Y.S. 236

Citing Cases

Mangan v. People's United Bank (In re Integrity Graphics, Inc.)

In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC , 454 B.R. 317, 332 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011), leave to appeal denied, No.…

Field v. Trashmasters, LLC (In re Rolloffs Haw., LLC)

I agree with the trustee, and with many other courts, that the particularity requirement does not apply to…