Case Name: Bohlen v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co. et al.
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-03-04
Citations: 9 N.Y.S. 424
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bohlen v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 9
Pages: 424–425

Head Matter:
Bohlen v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co. et al.
(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.
March 4, 1890.)
Teial by Coubt—Motion to Amend Findings.
Conflict in the findings of fact by the court without a jury is a judicial error, and cannot be corrected after judgment on a motion made at a term other than that at which the judgment was rendered.
Appeal from special term.
Action by Henry Bohlen against the Metropolitan Elevated Bailway Company and the Manhattan Bailway Company. The special term, after judgment, made an order amending a finding of the judge, who tried the case without a jury, and defendants appeal.
Argued before Sedgwick, C. J., and Dugro, J.
Davies & Rapallo, for appellants. Sackett & Bennett, for respondent.

Opinion:
Dugro, J.
The general term of this court recently held in Pappenheim v. Railway Co., 7 N. Y. Supp. 679, that findings of fact such as appear in the decision of this case are in irreconcilable conflict. Adopting this as a proper conclusion, it seems that it is impossible, from the record before us, to say which of the conflicting findings is correct. The error sought to be remedied by the order appealed from is therefore judicial, and cannot be corrected after judgment upon a motion made at a term other than that at which the judgment was rendered. Rockwell v. Carpenter, 25 Hun, 529; McLean v. Stewart, 14 Hun, 472; Gardiner v. Schwab, 34 Hun, 583; Freem. Judgm. § 70, 101. The order should be reversed.