Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

24 Wend. 13

Hart v. Coltrain

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1840

New York Supreme Court · decided 1840-05-15

In October, 1835, the plaintiffs in this cause obtained a verdict, which was set aside, and a new trial granted in May term, 1838. See 19 Wendell, 378. The cause was again tried, and a verdict found for the defendant. The plaintiffs, on a bill of exceptions, now move for a new trial. The action was ejectment, and the plaintiffs claimed to recover as the heirs at law of Jacob Hart.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““A motion for a new trial,-on a case made, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court-; and where the party relies on some defect in the proofs, which .is afterwards supplied by evidence which could not have been -controverted had it been produced at the proper time, and-the court see that a new trial could be of no use, the motion would be denied. (Burt v. Place, 4 Wend. 597 , and cases cited.) But tbis rule does not apply to a bill of exceptions, and we cannot look into tbe affidavit.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Fry v. Bennett

Relies on Ford & Ford v. Walsworth

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1840-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1929

3 state decisions

10184018501860187018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court,

Bronson, J.

¶2On a second trial of this action, see 19 Wendell, 378, the defendant obtained a verdict, and the plaintiffs took exceptions. The plaintiffs, among other things, objected that the judge of the court of probates *had no jurisdiction to order a sale [ *15 ] of the real estate, because it did not appear that the administrator made and presented to the judge an account of the personal estate and debts of the intestate. 15 Wend. 450. 19 id. 334. 20 id. 241. By way of answer to this objection, the defendant has, since the trial, produced an exemplified copy of an affidavit made by the administrator before the judge of the court of probates, on the day the sale was ordered; and he insists, that this affidavit, in connection with the matters proved on the trial, shows that such an account was presented as would give the judge jurisdiction to order a sale.

¶3*15A motion for a new trial, on a case made, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court; and where the party relies on some defect in the proofs, which is afterwards supplied by evidence which could not have been controverted had it been produced at the proper time,' and the court see that a new trial could be of no use, the motion will be denied. Bu,rt v. Place, 4 Wendell, 597, and cases cited. But this rule does not apply to a hill of exceptions, and we cannot look into the affidavit.

¶4New trial granted.

/24/wend/13 · .json · Public domain