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.
Charles H. Moore, as Receiver, etc., Appellant, v. J. Edward Simmons, as Receiver, etc., et al., Respondents, 1892 — 133 N.Y. 695 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Charles H. Moore, as Receiver, etc., Appellant, v. J. Edward Simmons, as Receiver, etc., et al., Respondents
133 N.Y. 695·New York Court of Appeals·1892·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
Charles H. Moore, as Receiver, etc., Appellant, v. J. Edward Simmons, as Receiver, etc., et al., Respondents.
(Argued June 10, 1892;
decided June 17, 1892.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, entered upon an order made the first Tuesday of June, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon the report of a referee.
The following is the opinion in full:
“ Upon the evidence contained in this record the case is not altered in favor of the defendant from the case presented to this court on the former appeal, our decision of which is reported in 115 N. Y. 65. We then held that the evidence raised only a question of law which we decided in favor of the plaintiff.
“ If the views of this court upon such questions are to be followed, a plain case in favor of the plaintiff was again made out on the new trial before the referee, and judgment in favor of the plaintiff should, therefore, have been given. Notwithstanding our former decision the referee, upon evidence which did not alter the defendant’s case in any aspect to his advantage, dismissed the complaint of the plaintiff, when he ought to have granted judgment in his favor.
“ For this clear error the judgment should again be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.”
John Ounneen and JR. L. Burrows for appellant.
David Wittcox for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
All concur.
Judgment reversed._