The Superior Court of New York City, 1890

Roberts v. Baumgarten

The Superior Court of New York City · Decided December 1, 1890 · Freedman

26 Jones & S. 407; 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 586

Counsel

Daniel G. Rollins, attorney, and Robert Hunter McGrath, Jr., of counsel, for appellant, on the questions considered, argued :—, Cephas Brainerd, attorney and of counsel, for respondents, on the questions considered, argued:—

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.—Freedman, J.

The question involved is a novel one. Many considerations have been advanced for and against the right to a new trial in a case like the present under the provisions of the Code of Civil. Procedure in force at the present time. The question can only be settled by the Court of Appeals and it is important that it should be settled. As the learned judge who made the order appealed from, rendered a well considered opinion, I think it is best, especially in view of the rulings of the Court of Appeals in Godfrey v. Moser, 66 N. Y. 250 ; Hiscock v. Harris, 80 lb. 402, and Conklin v. Snider, 104 lb. 641, as to the effect to be given to the stipulation for judgment absolute filed by an appellant to that court, that the order should be affirmed.

Order affirmed with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Truax and Ingraham, JJ., concurred.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.