Case Name: Kummer v. Christopher & East Tenth St. R. Co.
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-03
Citations: 3 Misc. 100
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kummer v. Christopher & East Tenth St. R. Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 100–101

Head Matter:
Kummer v. Christopher & East Tenth St. R. Co.
(New York Common Pleas
General Term,
March, 1893.)
On an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff, entered on a verdict, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, this court reversed said judgment and order upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and granted a new trial, costs to abide event. On a resettlement of the order, held, that it is not only unnecessary, but without authority, to have the ground of reversal recited therein.
Also held, that it not appearing that defendant protested in any manner against the submission of the case to the jury, costs of the former trial should be imposed upon it, and the order of reversal should be resettled accordingly.
Respondent’s motion for resettlement of an order 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 granting a new trial.
Herbert T. Keteham, for plaintiff (respondent).
Jason Hirnman, for defendant (appellant).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Our reversal of the judgment and order appealed from proceeded upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence (see opinion, 2 Mise. Rep. 298)? 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 Cow. 342; Bank of Utica v. Ives, 17 Wend. 501; Brown v. Bradshaw, 1 Duer, 635 ; Overing v. Russell, 28 How. Pr. 151; East River Bank v. Hoyt, 22 id. 478; North v. Sargent, 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; Ward v. Woodburn, 27 id. 346), and there does not appear to be any sufficient reason for departure from that practice in the present instance.