Administrative

Patrick Morgan et al., Respondents, v. James Mulligan et al., Appellants

50 N.Y. 665·New York Court of Appeals·1872·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

Patrick Morgan et al., Respondents, v. James Mulligan et al., Appellants. (Argued June 17, 1872; decided November 12, 1872.) The prominent point raised upon this appeal was that the findings of the referee before whom the case was tried were defective, in that he omitted to find upon certain issues presented by the pleadings. Held, that the proper remedy of the party would have been to apply to the court below for an order requiring the referee to pass upon the questions and re-settle his report as prescribed in Van SlyTce v. Hyatt (46 R. Y., 259); that the objection cannot be made in this court, but the presumption is that the referee has found in harmony with the conclusions of the report upon all questions where the evidence is capable of that construction. J. M. Smith for the appellants. Samuel Ha/nd for the respondents. [MAJORITY — Church, Ch. J.,] Church, Ch. J., reads opinion for affirmance. All concur. Judgment affirmed.