Case Name: Sidney Bloch, Respondent-Appellant, v. Black and White Cab Co., Inc., Appellant, and New York Railways Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1918-03
Citations: 102 Misc. 677
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sidney Bloch, Respondent-Appellant, v. Black and White Cab Co., Inc., Appellant, and New York Railways Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 102
Pages: 677–680

Head Matter:
Sidney Bloch, Respondent-Appellant, v. Black and White Cab Co., Inc., Appellant, and New York Railways Company, Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
March, 1918.)
Damages — proof of — Municipal Court of city of New York — automobiles — street railways — judgments.
Where in an action brought in the Municipal Court of the city of New York against a taxicab company and a street railway company to recover damages to plaintiff’s automobile it appeared that when it was halted by a policeman the only vehicle behind it was a taxicab of the defendant cab company which stood partly on the street railway track and the only vehicle behind the cab was a trolley car of the defendant railway company, and it further appears that something struck the taxicab and hurled it forward and upon plaintiff’s car, and upon proof of damage both plaintiff and defendants rest, the entry of two judgments, one in favor of plaintiff against the taxicah company and the other in favor of the railway company against the plaintiff, is unauthorized and both of said judgments will be reversed and judgment directed for plaintiff against the railway company and for the taxicab company dismissing the complaint on the merits.
Mullan, J., dissents.
Cross-appeals from judgments of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of The Bronx, second district.
John H. Scully, for appellant.
Joseph Hlavac, Jr., for respondent-appellant.
James L. Quackenbush (Henry F. Gannon, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Guy, J.
While it is true, as stated by Mr. Justice Mullan in his opinion, that there is no authority for the entry of two judgments in this case, it is evident that the entry was done by the clerk as the trial justice made but one decision, upon which the two judgments were entered.
Under the old practice, the proper distinction to be made in such a case would be to send the case to the lower court for the entry of the proper judgment. Brown v. McKie, 185 N. Y. 303. Neither side raises the objection that two judgments were entered and the legal effect is precisely the same as if but one judgment had been entered. " The law has outgrown its primitive stage of formalism when the precise word was the sovereign talisman, and every slip was fatal. It takes a broader view to-day." Wood v. Duff-Gordon,. 222 N. Y. 88, 91. It would be a hardship to require both parties to proceed to a new trial when but one party is liable and this court now has ample power to modify the judgment appealed from and to render judgment without regard to technical defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties (Code Civ. Pro. § 1317) and as to any or all the parties.
Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs to the plaintiff against the New York Railways Company, and thirty dollars costs to the Black and White Cab Co., Inc., against the plaintiff, and judgment directed for the plaintiff against the New York Railways Company for the sum of $120 and costs in the court below and for the defendant Black and White Cab Co., Inc., dismissing plaintiff's complaint on the merits, with costs.
Weeks, J., concurs.