New York Supreme Court, 1842

Tifft v. Culver

Tifft v. Culver
New York Supreme Court · Decided July 15, 1842 · Bronson
3 Hill & Den. 180

Counsel

Kellogg Strong, for the plaintiff in error., D. L. Seymour, for the defendant in error.

Tifft v. Culver

Opinion of the Court

By the Courts Bronson, J.

It is not necessary to determine whether the justice was right in adjourning over from Saturday night until Monday morning. The irregularity, if there was one, was waived by the defendant, by appearing and proceeding with the trial on Monday. (Durham v. Heyden, 7 John. R. 381 ; Willoughby v. Carleton, 9 id. 136.) By a treble damages,” the justice seems to have meant nothing more, than that he allowed something beyond the damage which the plaintiff had actually sustained by the injury; and the whole amount of damages, $5,89, was but a very moderate punishment for this wilful trespass. I think the judgment of the C. P. should be reversed, and that of the justice affirmed.

Ordered accordingly.

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