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.
General
James L. Stewart, Respondent, v. Medad T. Morss, Appellant
79 N.Y. 629·New York Court of Appeals·1880·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
James L. Stewart, Respondent, v. Medad T. Morss, Appellant.
To sustain an exception to the refusal of a referee, to find facts as requested, it is incumbent upon the party to show that the material facts, so requested to be found, were established by uncontroverted evidence, and that if found they would have affected the result.
No question can be raised in this court, upon a matter of fact, in a case tried by a referee, as to which no facts were found by the referee, or requested to be found.
(Argued December 8, 1879;
decided January 13, 1880.)
This was an action by an attorney to recover for professional services. Defendant set up, by way of counter-claim, neglect on the part of plaintiff resulting in damage. As to one of the matters so alleged, defendant requested the referee to find certain facts, the testimony was conflicting as to the material fact, the referee refused to find as requested, and defendant excepted. As to another matter, no facts were found, or requested to be found. Held as above.
Samuel Hand for appellant.
.A. Schoonmaker for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.