Case ID: ny-st-rep_51/html/0770-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bischoff, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles Kummer, Resp’t, v. The Christopher & East Tenth Street Railroad Co., App’lt.
    
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed March 14, 1893.)
    
    1. Appeal — Grounds of reversal not to be stated in order.
    There is no authority for inserting in an order entered upon a decision reversing a judgment and granting a new trial the grounds of reversal.
    2. Same — Costs.
    Where the appellant did not protest against the submission of the case to the jury, the costs of the former trial will be imposed upon him as a condition of granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the evidence or the weight of evidence.
    Respondent’s motion for resettlement of the order dated February 6, 1893, which reversed a judgment for plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying defendant’s motion for a . new trial on the minutes, and grants a new trial.'
    
      Herbert T. Ketcham, for resp’t; Jason Hinman, for app’lt.
    
      
       See 50 St. Rep., 332.
    
   Bischoff, J.

Our reversal of the judgment and order appealed from proceeded upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, see opinion, 50 St. Rep., 332, and the purport of respondent’s present motion is to have the ground of reversal recited in the order entered upon our decision of the appeal. Such a recital is, however, not only unnecessary, Goodwin v. Conklin, 85 N. Y., 21, but also without authority, Harris v. Burdett, 73 id., 136, and respondent’s motion in this respect is denied.

The order of reversal should, however, be resettled by striking out the words “ with costs to abide the event ” at the conclusion of the order, and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ upon condition that appellant shall within twenty days after service of this-order, with notice of entry thereof, pay to the respondent, or his attorney of record, the costs and disbursements of the last trial, to be taxed on notice, and if such costs and disbursements be not so paid, then respondent may apply, on proof by affidavit that the costs and disbursements remain unpaid, for an order affirming the judgment and order appealed from, with costs.”

It does not appear from the record of this appeal that appellant protested in any manner against the submission of the case to the jury, and for the omission so to do it has been the invariable, and is the settled practice of the courts at general term, to impose payment of the costs of the former trial upon the party against whom the verdict was rendered as a condition of granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the evidence or the weight of the evidence, Jackson v. Thurston, 3 Cowen, 342; Bank of Utica v. Ives, 17 Wend., 501; Brown v. Bradshaw, 1 Duer, 199; Overing v. Russell, 28 How. Pr., 151; East River Bank v. Hoyt, 22 id., 478; North v. Sargeant, 20 id., 519; Kelly v. Frazier, 27 Hun, 314; Bailey v. Park, 5 id., 41; Murphy v. Haswell, 65 Barb., 380; Wilson v. Lester, 64 id., 431; Weed v. Woodburn, 27 id., 346, and there does not appear to be any sufficient reason for departure from that practice in the present instance.

Order to be resettled as directed.

Bookstaver and Pryor, JJ., concur.