Case Name: Willis v. Weaver, appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1874-05
Citations: 3 Thomp. & Cook 757
Docket Number: 
Parties: Willis v. Weaver, appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Thompson & Cook's Supreme Court Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 757–758

Head Matter:
Willis v. Weaver, appellant.
Verdict against the weight of evidence — Vendor and purchaser — services and expenses in managing property.
Where it appears to the court from the evidence, that a verdict has been rendered for the plaintiff for a sum largely in excess of any just claim on his part, the judgment will be reversed on appeal, unless it can be modified by reducing it to what seems to be the fair and reasonable amount, at the plaintiff’s election, so as to avoid the expense and delay of a new trial. But if the court is unable to fix upon items so clearly recoverable as to warrant a modification of the verdict, to make it conform to them, a new trial will be ordered.
The defendant being the plaintiff’s surety, the latter, to indemnify him against a contingent liability as such for some $10,000, conveyed to him by deed a tract of land with the understanding that whatever should be ultimately realized, beyond such indemnity and incumbrances and liens, and the expenses the defendant might be subjected to in the management and disposition of the property, should bé paid to the plaintiff. From the date of this conveyance the plaintiff had the management and disposition of the property for ten or twelve years. Seld, that his services in so doing were a part of the expenses contemplated and provided for, and were not a just debit against the defendant, without at the same time being a fair credit in his favor.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and from an order denying a new trial. The action was brought by Anson Willis against James Weaver, to recover for the amount of the consideration of a conveyance of real estate unpaid, and for services in disposing of the real estate in question, and other real estate.
Chambers & Pomeroy, for appellants.
Brainard & Rice, for respondents.

Opinion:
Davis, P. J.
The only points passed upon in the opinion appear fully in the head-note. The case involved chiefly a disputed question of the state of facts.
Judgment reversed and neto trial ordered.