Case Name: Michael Sess et al., Appellants, v. David Richey et al., Respondents
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-05
Citations: 27 Misc. 843
Docket Number: 
Parties: Michael Sess et al., Appellants, v. David Richey et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 843–843

Head Matter:
Michael Sess et al., Appellants, v. David Richey et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants.
Leopold Leo (William Haupt, of counsel), for appellants.
Edwards & Bryan (Robert H. Patten, 2d, of counsel), for-respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We concur in the verdict of the jury. They believed that if plaintiffs had been allowed to perform their contract: with defendants they would have lost money instead of making a profit; they evidently wished to prevent defendants from recovering two bills of costs herein, therefore, they rendered a verdict for-plaintiffs for nominal damages supposing that such a verdict would so save-plaintiffs. A verdict in favor of defendants would have been justified by the evidence.' After a careful perusal of the-verdict, we think that no injustice was done plaintiffs.
Present: Eitzsimohs, Ch. J., and O'Dwyeb, J.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.