Case Name: JEANETTE HAIGHT, Appellant, v. JAMES B. HAIGHT, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1876-02
Citations: 14 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 87
Docket Number: 
Parties: JEANETTE HAIGHT, Appellant, v. JAMES B. HAIGHT, Respondent.
Judges: Present — Barnard, P. J., Talcott and Pratt, JJ.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 14
Pages: 87–87

Head Matter:
JEANETTE HAIGHT, Appellant, v. JAMES B. HAIGHT, Respondent.
Bepleoin — form of judgment in — who may take advantage of error in.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of the county of Dutchess, affirming a judgment rendered by a court of a justice of the peace. The action was to recover the possession of personal property, and the plaintiff had a delivery thereof upon an undertaking pursuant to the statute. The justice rendered judgment for the defendant. The only real question in the case was-in regard to the form of the judgment rendered by the justice. The judgment, as entered by the justice in his docket, was as follows : “ Judgment in favor of defendant against the plaintiff for possession of the personal property mentioned in plaintiff’s affidavit, to wit, one buggy wagon, with costs.” The justice did not assess the value of the property and give judgment for the return of the property, or the value thereof in case a return could not be had, and damages for raking and withholding the same. The court at General Term held, that, as the provisions of the statute requiring the judgment to be in this form, were for the benefit of the defendant, and as he was contented with the judgment as it was, although he recovered no damages for the taking and withholding, and would not be entitled to any execution to collect the value, in ease a return of the property could not be had, he was the only party who could be injured by the omissions of the justice, and the only party who had any right to complain of them. The court did not think the error was one of which the plaintiff could complain, or for which she was entitled to a reversal.
William Brewer, for the appellant. Daniel W. Guernsey, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Talcott, J.
Present — Barnard, P. J., Talcott and Pratt, JJ.
The judgment of the County Court affirmed, with costs.