Steinau v. Gorham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 21, 1900

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1900-12-21

Action by Charles J. Steinau against Augustus S. Gorham and another. From a judgment dismissing their counterclaim and an order denying a new trial thereon, defendants appeal.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1944

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““We are satisfied from the record in this case that there was a misapprehension as to the rights of the parties before the court at the time of the trial, and that probable injustice has resulted from such misapprehension. We are of the opinion that this situation can only be completely remedied by a retrial of all the issues involved in the case. The defendants have taken no exception entitling them as a matter of right to a retrial as to their counterclaim, which we might possibly grant as a matter of favor upon their appeal from the order denying the motion for new trial. Our conclusion, therefore, is that, if the defendants will stipulate to agree to a reversal of the whole judgment, the same will be reversed, without costs to either party; if not, the order denying the motion for a new trial will be affirmed, with costs.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Gonzales v. Sharp & Fellows Contracting Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed on condition · Decided 1900-12-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We are satisfied from the record in this case that there was a misapprehension as to the rights of the parties before the court at the time of the trial, and that probable injustice has resulted from such misapprehension. We are of the opinion that this situation can only be completely remedied by a retrial of all the issues involved in the case. The defendants have taken no exception entitling them as a matter of right to a retrial as to their counterclaim, which we might possibly grant as a matter of favor upon their appeal from the order denying the motion for new trial. Our conclusion, therefore, is that, if the defendants will stipulate to agree to a reversal of the whole judgment, the same will be reversed, without costs to either party; if not, the order denying the motion for a new trial will be affirmed, with costs.