Case Name: JACOB SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PATRICK McCABE et al., Defendants and Respondents
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1873-05-03
Citations: 4 Jones & S. 83
Docket Number: 
Parties: JACOB SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PATRICK McCABE et al, Defendants and Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 36
Pages: 83–84

Head Matter:
JACOB SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PATRICK McCABE et al, Defendants and Respondents.
Before Barbour, Ch. J., and Monell and Van Vorst, JJ.
Decided May 3, 1873.
New trial for excessive verdict.
'Where the verdict is clearly not justified by the evidence, and it clearly appears that the jury, in determining the amount of the same, or the value of the property which is the subject of the action, has gone outside the evidence upon the trial, and found a verdict for a larger sum or value than the evidence will justify; the verdict is excessive, and a new trial should be granted.
Appeal from an order of the Special Term, granting a new trial.
J. H. Whitelegge, for appellant.
J. B. Bullock, attorney, and T. C. T. Buckley, of counsel, for respondents

Opinion:
By the Court.—Van Vorst, J.
We cannot hut think, after a careful examination of the evidence, that the jury have rendered a verdict which in amount is clearly not justified by the evidence.
Exhibit 0 was not in evidence for the purpose of furnishing any guide to the jury in arriving at the value of the property.
Yet the approval or estimate of the jury, substantially corresponds with the aggregate of the values, as contained in exhibit C. There is no other amount in the. evidence to support the verdict.
The witness Hassenpflug claims to speak of all the-articles and their value.
His testimony fixes the value at about $670. He had. originally purchased some at a less valuation, which at the time he supposed to be paid.
The learned judge before whom the trial was had granted a new trial for the reasons that the jury in determining the value had gone outside the evidence, and that the verdict was excessive. We agree with 'the-opinion so expressed.
The order appealed from should be affirmed with costs.
Babboue, Oh. J., and Monell, J., concurred.