¶1It is manifest from the case that the undisputed item of $20 was overlooked on the trial by both parties, and for this the plaintiffs were as much in fault as the court or the defendants. After the verdict had ■been rendered, and the oversight was called to the attention of the court, it promptly corrected the error, as it had the power to do. Burhans v. Tibbits, 7 How. Pr. 21; Van Schoening v. Buchanan, 14 Abb. Pr. 185; Clark v. Richards, 3 E. D. Smith, 89. The fact that this changed the general verdict for the defendants into a specific judgment in plaintiffs’ favor is to the advantage •of the latter, and they cannot complain of ft; especially as we cannot see how ■the oversight of the court in respect to this item in any way influenced the jury on the other questions involved in the case, or that any error was committed by the court in its charge as to the other property in controversy. The judgment and order must therefore be affirmed, with costs.
3 N.Y.S. 757
Fischer v. Reilly
New York Court of Common Pleas
Decided February 4, 1889
New York Court of Common Pleas · decided 1889-02-04
Action by John Fischer and another against John J Reilly and another. A general verdict was returned for defendants. Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial was “granted, unless the defendants stipulate to change and amend the verdict * * * so that it would appear to have been rendered in favor of plaintiffs for $20 and interest,” and was denied in the event that such stipulation should be made. Defendants stipulated accordingly, and judgment was entered for plaintiffs for $21.35.
Relies on Burhans v. Tibbits · Von Schoening v. Buchanan
Decided 1889-02-04