Case Name: William Seward Webb, Respondent, v. William H. Morrison and Another, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-12
Citations: 99 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 605
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Seward Webb, Respondent, v. William H. Morrison and Another, Appellants.
Judges: Present —Hardin, P. J., Martin and Merwin, JJ.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 99
Pages: 605–605

Head Matter:
William Seward Webb, Respondent, v. William H. Morrison and Another, Appellants.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.—

Opinion:
Appeal from a judgment entered in Herkimer county on the 13th day of August, 1894, upon findings of fact and conclusions of law made at Special Term. The action was brought to reform and then enforce specific performance of a contract for the purchase of lands known as lots 6 and 7 of township 38, Totton & Crossfield's purchase, in the town of Long Lake, Hamilton county.— Per Curiam: From the appeal book it would seem that the defendants sought to prepare a bill of exceptions upon which'to obtain a review of the decision made at Special Term. However, it appears that considerable portions of the evidence given at the trial are inserted in the appeal book. Findings of " fact were made, which are very full and elaborate, and upon looking into the evidence found in the appeal book, it is quite apparent that the evidence, though conflicting, fully sustains the findings of fact made by the trial judge. He delivered an opinion which extensively considers all the essential questions of law which arose during the progress of the trial, and which form the basis for the conclusion which he reached, and the opinion is satisfactory upon the' essential questions of law involved in the case, and renders it unnecessary that a further discussion should be had of the facts or of the law involved in the case. (Southard v. Curley, 134 N. Y. 148; Allison Brothers Co., v. Allison, 63 N. Y. St. Repr. 1.)
Present —Hardin, P. J., Martin and Merwin, JJ.