Case Name: Bernard B. Christ, Resp't, v. Bradbury C. Chetwood, App'lt
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-11-27
Citations: 55 N.Y. St. Rep. 776
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bernard B. Christ, Resp’t, v. Bradbury C. Chetwood, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 55
Pages: 776–777

Head Matter:
Bernard B. Christ, Resp’t, v. Bradbury C. Chetwood, App’lt.
(City Court of New York, General Term,
Filed November 27, 1893.)
Hew trial—Newly discovered evidence.
A new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence will not be granted after the judgment has been affirmed by two appellate courts.
Appeal from order denying motion for a new trial on the-ground of newly discovered evidence.
Herman G. Loew, for resp’t; John G. Ritter, for app’lt.

Opinion:
Newburger, J.
This action was brought against the defendant for the receipt, conversion and wrongful detention and withholding from plaintiff of moneys received and collected by defendant as an attorney belonging to plaintiff which he, defendant, appropriated to his own use.
In 1877 the plaintiff, who was then about fourteen years of age, with his sister, were the owners of a bond and mortgage on real estate in the city of New York.
In that year defendant was retained as attorney to institute-foreclosure proceedings, and he brought such an action, and in that action the property was sold and bought in by the sister of the plaintiff.
In 1879 the property was again sold and the purchase price was received by the defendant as attorney.
The answer of the defendant admits the receipt of the money, but sets up a number of defenses, including statute of limitations, settlement with the plaintiff's sister and a counterclaim for services rendered.
This case was tried in April, 1892, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and against the defendant, for the sum of nine hundred dollars ($900).
An appeal was then taken to the general term of this court, which affirmed the judgment entered upon the verdict
The defendant then appealed to the general term of the court-of common pleas, which affirmed the judgment April 5, 1893,
Subsequently, and in May, 1893, defendant moved for a new trial on newly discovered evidence.
This motion was heard and denied, and from the order entered therein, this appeal is taken.
This motion comes too late. It would be a great injustice to the plaintiff.
It is not the practice to grant new trials, upon newly discovered evidence, after the judgment has been affirmed by two appellate courts.
Independent, however, of the practice there is no merit in the application.
The' motion was properly denied, and the order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.
McCarthy, J., concurs.