Case Name: Robert Wallace, Appellant, v. John Drew et al., Respondents
Court: New York Commission of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1873-09
Citations: 54 N.Y. 678
Docket Number: 
Parties: Robert Wallace, Appellant, v. John Drew et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 678–679

Head Matter:
Robert Wallace, Appellant, v. John Drew et al., Respondents.
(Submitted June 20, 1873;
decided September term, 1873.)
This was an action tried by a referee. The judgment, upon his report, was reversed by the General Term and new trial granted. The order of reversal did not specify that the reversal was upon questions of fact. Held, that under section 272 of the Code it must be assumed that the reversal was for error of law, although, by the opinion of the General Term, it appeared that the reversal was because the damages were-excessive, and there appearing no error of law, the order reversed and the judgment entered upon the report of the.referee affirmed.
Henderson & Wentworth for the appellant.
Carey & Jewell for the respondents.

Opinion:
Reynolds, C.,
reads for reversal of order granting a new trial, and affirmance of judgment entered upon the report of. the referee.
All concur.
Order reversed, and judgment accordingly.