Case ID: ny-st-rep_60/html/0826-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Clement, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abraham Denike, Resp’t, v. Charles W. Denike, App’lt.
    
      (Brooklyn City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed May 28, 1894.)
    
    Teial—Veedict—Iktebest.
    A. verdict, made up in part of interest to which the party is not entitled, cannot be sustained as to such part, though the jury could have awarded an amount larger than such verdict.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff.
    
      H. J. Morris, for app’lt; M. L. Towns, for resp’t.
   Clement, C. J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover of the áfíendant the sum of $1,000, with interest from J uly 11,1883. In the complaint the plaintiff alleged that on or about J uly 11,1883, the defendant applied to him for a deed of his interest in certain real estate, and promised, in consideration thereof, to pay him the sum of $1,000 and interest from said July 11, 1883, upon the final settlement of the estate of "one Abraham Denike, who had devised the real estate in question to plaintiff, defendant, and Elizabeth A. Burnham. Plaintiff further alleged in his complaint that by reason of such promise of the defendant he delivered to him a deed conveying all his right, title, and interest in and to said real estate, and that a decree upon a final accounting of the estate of Abraham Denike was made and entered on February 6,1893. The defendant denied that he promised to pay plaintiff the sum of $1,000 at the time of the delivery of the deed, but testifies that two years afterwards, in 1885, he did tell the plaintiff that he would give him $500 if he received a distributive share in the final accounting of the estate of Abraham Denike. It appears in the final accounting that there was nothing to divide. The testimony of the defendant is confused, and it is difficult to understand what he did mean to say. The jury found a verdict for plaintiff for the sum of $500, with interest from July 11, 1883. If the jury had found a verdict for $1,000, with interest from the date of the final accounting, February 6, 1893, it would have been in accordance with the testimony of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not testify that the defendant agreed to pay interest in addition to the $1,000, but that he agreed to pay $1,000 at the last accounting. As there was no promise to pay interest, and the defendant was not in default until the date of such accounting, on no theory of the case was it possible for the defendant to be liable for interest, except from the date of the final accounting. The jury could have found a verdict for plaintiff foYthe sum of $807.58 (the amount of damages in the judgment), and the defendant could not complain; but it appears on the face of the verdict that the plaintiff was awarded $500 of principal and $307.58 interest. The question whether the defendant was liable to plaintiff for the sum of $1,000 or a smaller amount was one purely of fact, and was properly submitted to the jury.

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, unless within ten days plaintiff’s attorney files a stipulation reducing the damages to the sum of $500, with interest from February 6, 1893, in which case judgment and order denying new trial are affirmed, without costs of appeal.