Case Name: WELLING v. MORRELL
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-12-30
Citations: 156 N.Y.S. 562
Docket Number: 
Parties: WELLING v. MORRELL.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 156
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
WELLING v. MORRELL.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
December 30, 1915.)
3, Appeal and Error <§=>664;—Amount or Judgment—Record.
The record containing the judgment actually rendered, and showing the amount thereof to be §240, would control over the stenographer’s minutes, showing that the trial justice said, “Judgment * * * for $367,” that being evidently a mistake.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2856-2859; Dec. Dig. <S=>664.]
<§E^>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
2. Appeal and Ebrob @=>1151—Modification—Amount of Judgment.
Where a correct computation showed that plaintiff was entitled to judgment for but $238, though the record showed judgment actually rendered for $240, the judgment would be modified, by reducing the amount to $238.
[Ed. Note.-—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4498-4506; Dec. Dig. @=>1151.]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
Action by Richard Welling against Gerald Morrell. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Modified and affirmed.
Argued December term, 1915, before GUY, PAGE, and PHÍEBIN, JJ.
John T. Loew, of New York City, for appellant.
Sobel & Brand, of New York City, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
At the end of the stenographer's minutes in this case it appears that the justice who tried the case said: "Judgment for the plaintiff for $367." This was evidently a mistake, as the judgment actually rendered was for the sum of $240, as appears by the judgment contained in the record, which must control. A correct computation, however, shows that the plaintiff is entitled to but $238.
Judgment modified, by reducing the amount of recovery to the sum of $238, with appropriate costs in the court below, and, as modified, affirmed, with $25 costs to the respondent.