Case Name: DANN et al. v. PALMER et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-05-01
Citations: 135 N.Y.S. 411
Docket Number: 
Parties: DANN et al. v. PALMER et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 135
Pages: 411–416

Head Matter:
DANN et al. v. PALMER et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
May 1, 1912.)
1. Trial (§ 392*)—Findings—Submission—Statutes.
Code Civ. Proc. § 1023, provides that before a cause is finally submitted to the court or within such time afterwards, and before the report is rendered as the court allows, the attorney for either party may present in writing a statement of the facts which he deems established by the evidence and the rulings on questions of law which he desires the court to make, and that, before the tidie when the decision or report is rendered, the court shall note in the margin of the statement, the manner in which each proposition has been disposed of, and must file or return to the attorney the statement thus noted. Held, that where a case was submitted to the judge for decision in March, 1909, on oral arguments and briefs, without any suggestion that any party would thereafter submit a request to find facts and to rule on questions of law, and no suggestion to that effect was made until after the judge had delivered his opinion, a provision at the close thereof that “findings may be submitted” should be construed to refer to a formal decision, and did not autnorize the filing thereafter of proposed findings of fact and law under such section.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 916-919; Dec. Dig. § 392.*]
2. Trial (§ 392*)—Decision—Suggestions by Counsel.
The practice of the trial judge to receive proposed findings or suggestions from attorneys for the respective parties to aid him in putting in a formal decision what he had already decided, is independent of Code Civ. Proc. § 1023, relating to the proposed formal request to find facts or law, and is independent thereof.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 916-919; Dec. Dig. § 392.*]
3. Trial (§ 392*)—Decision—Reconsideration.
A trial judge, after delivering his opinion, may reconsider his conclusions and revise his decision or make an entirely different one at any time before he has made the formal decision as required by Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1010, 1022, and to that end may permit submission of requests to find as provided by section 1023.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 916-919; Dec. Dig. § 392.*]
4. Trial (§ 393*)—Determination—Findings of Fact and Law.
Code Civ. Proc. § 1023, authorizes the filing of proposed findings of fact and law for action of the judge before decision, requiring such proposed findings to be in the form of distinct propositions of law or fact or both, separately stated, each to be numbered and so prepared with respect to its length and the subject and phraseology as may be convenient to pass on. Held, that where proposed findings of fact and law filed were 127 in number, many of them being mere recitals of the evidence and others covered by the formal decision, they were improper, and the court properly refused to pass on them.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 920-923; Dec. Dig. § 393.*]
5. Appeal and Error (§ 1012*)—Judgment—Review.
Where a judgment is against the weight of the evidence, that question may be reviewed by the Appellate Division, and, if any of the findings are without evidence to sustain them, they may be excepted to as a ruling on a question of law as authorized by Code Civ. Proc. §§ 992, 993, and are revlewable on appeal both in the Appellate Division and in the Court of Appeals.
•For other cases see same topic & 5 number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3990-3992; 'Dec. Dig. § 1012.*]
McLennan, P. J., and Foote J., dissenting.
*For other cases see same topic‘& § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 190? to date, & Itep’r Indexes
Appeal from Special Term, Onondaga County.
Action by Edward H. .Dann and others, as executors of the will of Eva L. Harrison, deceased, and others, against Manning C. Palmer and others and Albert P. Eowler, as receiver of the American Exchange National Bank of Syracuse. From an order of the Supreme Court denying the application and motion of. defendant, Charles M. • Crouse and others, and motion made by them to have the court pass on certain proposed findings of fact and law under Code Civ. Proc. § 1023, they appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, KRUSE, ROBSON, arid FOOTE, JJ.
Levi S. Chapman, of Syracuse, for appellant Charles M. CroUse. ■
Jerome -L: Cheney, of Syracuse, for appellants Sager, Go wing, and Cheney.
T. É. Hancock, of Syracuse, for appellants Theodore E. Hancock and' Charles E. Crouse.
Charles P. Ryan, of Syracuse, for respondents.

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
After the trial judge had handed down his opinion, deciding the case in favor of the plaintiffs, but before he had signed his formal decision, the defendants submitted to the trial judge proposed findings of fact and law (as they are designated), upon which the judge declined to pass further than as found in his formal decision, upon the ground that they were not submitted to him until after he had decided the issues and delivered his opinion to counsel. After the formal decision had been signed, application was made at Special Term, at which the same judge presided who decided the case, to have him pass upon the proposed findings. The application was denied, and from the order entered upon that decision this appeal is taken.
The case was submitted to the judge for decision in March, 1909, upon oral arguments and briefs, without any suggestion that any party would thereafter submit to him requests to find facts or to rule upon questions of law; nor was any such suggestion made until after the judge had delivered his opinion, as has been stated. The defendants contend that the proposed findings were submitted under the provisions of section 1023 df the Code of Civil Procedure, and were timely submitted. That contention seems to rest upon a statement at the close of the opinion, stating that findings may be submitted, and what occurred thereafter. But the judge seems not to have so understood that statement. What the judge seems to have had in mind was not to reopen the case to permit requests to find to be submitted, but to' receive such suggestions from the attorneys for the respective parties as might aid him in putting into a formal decision what he had already decided.
That practice was in vogue long before the enactment of the present Code of Civil Procedure, and has been resorted to more or less by trial judges since the enactment of section 1023 in its present form, and is entirely independent of the course of procedure provided by that section.
The purpose of submitting requests under section 1023 is not only to protect the rights of parties upon appeal, but as well to aid the trial judge in determining the case. The opinion shows that the judge had considered the questions of fact as well as law, and had reached a conclusion thereon. His opinion is a very full and complete statement of the facts found and an elaborate discussion of the law, and directs the judgment to be entered, although it is not a formal decision.
Undoubtedly the judge had the right, after delivering his opinion, to reconsider his conclusions and revise his decision or make an entirely different one at any time before he had made the formal decision, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure (sections 1010, 1022), and to that end to permit requests to find to be submitted under section 1023. But, as I have stated, it does not seem- co me that that was the purpose of the judge.
Furthermore, that section requires the statement to be in the form of distinct propositions of law or of fact or both, separately stated, each to be numbered and so prepared with respect to its length and the subject and phraseology thereof that it may be conveniently passed upon. Its purpose is to aid the judge, and not to entrap him. Of the 127 proposed findings, 67 are denominated "Findings of Fact," and 60 "Law." Many of them are mere recitals of the evidence, others are covered by the formal decision, and the statement, as a whole, I think, is not such as the section contemplates.
If the judgment is against the weight of the evidence, that may be reviewed in this court, and, if any of the findings are without any evidence to support them, they may be excepted to as a ruling upon a question of law (Code of Civil Procedure, § 992, 993), and are reviewable upon appeal in the Court of Appeals as well as in this court. If the defendants desired to submit requests to find, they should have done so seasonably. They made no case relieving them from their default, and no relief was asked upon that ground. They contended, and still contend, that the requests were seasonably made and in proper form. I think that position is not tenable.
The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
SPRING and ROBSON, JJ., concur.