From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Curtiss v. Jebb

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 3, 1911
96 N.E. 120 (N.Y. 1911)

Opinion

Argued June 12, 1911

Decided October 3, 1911

Charles B. Sears and Louis L. Babcock for appellant.

James McCormick Mitchell for respondent.


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.

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.

CULLEN, Ch. J., GRAY, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK and CHASE, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Curtiss v. Jebb

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 3, 1911
96 N.E. 120 (N.Y. 1911)
Case details for

Curtiss v. Jebb

Case Details

Full title:HARLOW C. CURTISS, Respondent, v . WILLIAM T. JEBB, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 3, 1911

Citations

96 N.E. 120 (N.Y. 1911)
96 N.E. 120

Citing Cases

Wilson Co., Inc., v. Hershkowitz

A general provision of the Civil Practice Act is applicable to the Municipal Court unless the same matter is…

Metropolitan Commercial Corporation v. Scheffler

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. (See Curtiss v. Jebb, 203 N.Y. 538.) All concur.…