Dreyfous v. Adams

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

3,847

Attorney(S)

P. B. Ladd, for the Appellant, argued that the highest value ofthe piano proven, was four hundred dollars in gold coin, and that the stipulation did not authorize the jury to add to their verdict the difference in a commercial point of view between the value of gold and currency, and that the Court had no authority to disregard the verdict and render a judgment of its own. T. F. Bachelder, for the Respondent, argued that the jury had a right, under the stipulation, to add to the gold coin value of the piano proven, the difference in value between gold and currency, and that the defendant was not injured by the verdict being reduced in amount by the Court.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

3,847

Attorney(S)

P. B. Ladd, for the Appellant, argued that the highest value ofthe piano proven, was four hundred dollars in gold coin, and that the stipulation did not authorize the jury to add to their verdict the difference in a commercial point of view between the value of gold and currency, and that the Court had no authority to disregard the verdict and render a judgment of its own. T. F. Bachelder, for the Respondent, argued that the jury had a right, under the stipulation, to add to the gold coin value of the piano proven, the difference in value between gold and currency, and that the defendant was not injured by the verdict being reduced in amount by the Court.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

CECELIA DREYFOUS v. JAMES ADAMS

JUDGES: Crockett, J.

OPINION

CROCKETT, Judge

The stipulation of counsel in open Court authorized the jury to assess the damages in currency if they found for the plaintiff, and the defendant is estopped from raising an objection to the verdict on that ground. Nor can he complain of the action of the Court, in requiring the plaintiff to remit a portion of the damages, as a condition on which the defendant's motion for a new trial would be denied. The Court certainly inflicted no injury upon the defendant in requiring the plaintiff to remit a part of the damages. The appeal is frivolous.

Judgment affirmed, with fifteen per cent. damages. Remittitur forthwith.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

CECELIA DREYFOUS v. JAMES ADAMS

Comments