Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Robert Wallace, Appellant, v. John Drew et al., Respondents, 1873 — 54 N.Y. 678 · caselaw · US
General
Robert Wallace, Appellant, v. John Drew et al., Respondents
54 N.Y. 678·New York Commission of Appeals·1873·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Robert Wallace, Appellant, v. John Drew et al., Respondents.
(Submitted June 20, 1873;
decided September term, 1873.)
This was an action tried by a referee. The judgment, upon his report, was reversed by the General Term and new trial granted. The order of reversal did not specify that the reversal was upon questions of fact. Held, that under section 272 of the Code it must be assumed that the reversal was for error of law, although, by the opinion of the General Term, it appeared that the reversal was because the damages were-excessive, and there appearing no error of law, the order reversed and the judgment entered upon the report of the.referee affirmed.
Henderson & Wentworth for the appellant.
Carey & Jewell for the respondents.
[MAJORITY — Reynolds, C.,]
Reynolds, C.,
reads for reversal of order granting a new trial, and affirmance of judgment entered upon the report of. the referee.
All concur.
Order reversed, and judgment accordingly.