Court Opinion

ID: 3618030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 00:00:39.863068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:34.826101
License: Public Domain

[EDITORS' NOTE:  THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 558 
[EDITORS' NOTE:  THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 559 
[EDITORS' NOTE:  THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 560 
[EDITORS' NOTE:  THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 561 
HAIGHT, J., reads for reversal.
All concur, except BRADLEY, VANN and BROWN, JJ., dissenting, who were of the opinion that, while the General Term might, with great propriety, have reversed the judgment upon the ground that the findings of the referee were opposed to the weight of evidence, still, as there was some evidence to support the referee's conclusion, this court could not interfere.
Judgment reversed. *Page 562