Case ID: misc_59/html/0213-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edmund H. Norwood, Respondent, v. The G. & W. Manufacturing Company, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    May, 1908.)
    New trial — Grounds — Verdict or findings contrary to evidence — Where court cannot tell what items were allowed.
    Upon an appeal to the Appellate Term from a judgment rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, where it is impossible with any degree of certainty to determine from the evidence what items of the plaintiff’s claim were allowed and what disallowed in the judgment rendered, the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, first district, borough of Manhattan.
    Waldo & Ball, for appellant.
    Samuel Bitterman, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

As the method by which the court below arrived at the amount of the judgment, given in plaintiff’s favor, seems to be involved in much obscurity, since it is impossible with any degree of certainty to determine from the evidence what items were allowed and what disallowed, we think the interests of justice require a new trial.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs in the court below to abide the event, but without costs of appeal to either party.

Present: Gildersleeve, Giegerich and Greenbaum, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs in court below to abide event.