Case ID: ny-st-rep_46/html/0023-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dugro, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John H. F. Uhlenhaut, Resp’t, v. The Manhattan Railway Co. et al., App’lts.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed April 11, 1892.)
    
    Trial—Findings.
    It is not reversible error for the court to direct requests to find to be marked “Refused, except so far as covered by the findings” already made, where the findings asked were not material to the decision of the case.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff.
    Defendants presented certain requests for findings, which the court directed to be marked “ Refused,” except so far as they were covered by the findings of fact and conclusions of law settled and signed by him.
    
      Charles E. Crowell, for resp’t; Davies & Rapallo, for app’lts.
   Dugro, J.

I have examined this case with care, and can find no error which requires reversal.

The finding as to the plaintiff’s fee in Pearl street was warranted by the evidence. If the learned trial judge erred in directing the requests presented to him to be marked, “ refused, except so far, etc.,” the defendants were not prejudiced by the error; for the findings asked were not material to the decision of the case, nor would they, if the request had been properly disposed of, have been beneficial to the party asking them. It was not error requiring reversal for the learned trial judge to act as he did, although he should properly have found upon the questions. Callanan et al. v. Gilman, 107 N. Y., 372; 12 St. Rep., 21.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Gildersleeve, J., concur.