Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

203 N.Y. 538

96 N.E 120

Curtiss v. . Jebb

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 3, 1911

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1911-10-03

1910, unanimously affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover money alleged to have been paid under fraudulent representations.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1937

1 district · 2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1911-10-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 Upon this appeal there are only two questions that survive the unanimous affirmance by the Appellate Division. One relates to the, exclusion of certain testimony offered by the defendant, and the other arises upon the form of the judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff. As to the first of these questions we have only to say that since the trial court, upon defendant’s objection, had previously excluded similar evidence offered by the plaintiff, the ruling excepted to by the defendant was clearly right.

¶2 As to the form of the judgment we hold that under no rule of practice is there any justification for inserting in a judgment a provision for the issuance of an execution against the person, and much less for quoting extracts from the judge’s charge to the jury. These parts of the judgment are, therefore, to be stricken out, and the judgment, as thus modified, should be affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.

¶3 Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ., concur.

¶4 Judgment accordingly.

/203/ny/538 · .json · Public domain