Aldridge v. Aldridge

Citation120 N.Y. 614,24 N.E. 1022
PartiesALDRIDGE v. ALDRIDGE.
Decision Date27 June 1890
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from an order of the general term of the supreme court of the second department, reversing a judgment entered upon the decision of the special term, and granting a new trial. The action was brought to set aside two deeds which transferred certain real estate in the city of Brooklyn from the plaintiff to George E. Adams. The grounds of the action were that the deed from the plaintiff was procured by undue influence, and at a time when she was sick, and not conscious of the nature and character of her acts. The parties were husband and wife.

Josiah T. Marean, for appellant.

Samuel P. Potter, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

The trial court found upon conflicting evidence that the deed from the plaintiff to George E. Adams was procured from her by the defendant and said Adams by fraud and undue influence practiced by them upon her, and that at the time she executed the same her condition of mind was such that she was not conscious of the nature of her act, and gave judgment in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. The general term reversed the judgment, and granted a new trial, and has certified in its order that such reversal was on questions of both law and fact.

We are of the opinion that it was error for the general term to reverse the judgment upon the record before it. The case contains an exception to the finding I have quoted, but no statement that all the evidence given upon the trial is contained within it. The facts were not therefore before the general term for review, and the only questions it could properly consider were those of law. Halpin v. Insurance Co., 118 N. Y. 165, 23 N. E. Rep. 482; Brayton v. Sherman, 23 N. E. Rep. 471; Porter v. Smith, 107 N. Y. 531, 14 N. E. Rep. 446; Howland v. Howland, 20 Hun, 472; Spence v. Chambers, 39 Hun, 193; Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Best, 4 N. Y. Supp. 510;Wellington v. Improvement Co., 5 N. Y. Supp. 587;Murphy v. Board, 6 N. Y. Supp. 99. It is said by the respondent that this point was not taken at the general term, but it was not necessary that it should be raised there. The exception to the finding of fact, and the absence of the certificate in the case on appeal, was notice to the plaintiff that the defendant intended to raise on the appeal questions of law only, and he could not anticipate that a well-settled rule of practice would be overlooked by the general term. While this rule does not exist in the Code, it is now so firmly established by the decisions of the general terms and of this court that it must be adhered to, or the result will be great confusion in the preparation of cases on appeal. The learned general term that decided this case, in the authority last above cited, in affirming a judgment of the special term, very appropriately said: ‘This rule is so well established that a respondent may properly rely upon it; and, after a case has been made in a manner appropriate only for the review of questions of law, to reverse a judgment upon the facts would be an injustice to the respondent, who has a right to rely upon the court's enforcing the rules it has announced for the guidance of litigants.’ But, notwithstanding that we think the facts were not before the general term for review, we have carefully examined the evidence in the case, and are of the opinion that, within the rules that govern appellate courts in reviewing the determination of trial courts upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Honerine Min. & Mill. Co. v. Tallerday Steel Pipe & Tank Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • 5 Diciembre 1906
  • Olson v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • 26 Marzo 1902
    ......696; Railroad Co. v. Lorentzen, 24 C.C.A. 592, 79 F. 291; Association v. Robinson, 20 C.C.A. 262, 74 F. 10; Aldridge v. Aldridge, 120 N.Y. 614, 24 N.E. 1022; James v. Dexter, 113 Ill. 654; Wood v. Railway Co., 49. Mich. 370, 13 N.W. 779; Beatty v. O'Connor, 106. ......
  • Hecla Gold-Mining Co. v. Gisborn
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • 2 Enero 1900
    ...... all the evidence which was before the trial court. Warner. v. Accident Ass'n, 8 Utah 431; Aldridge v. id., 120 N.Y. 614-6; Suspender Co. v. Van Borries,. supra: Ry. Co. v. Amos, supra. . . There. is nothing before this court on the ......
  • Foster v. Bookwalter
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 2 Marzo 1897
    ...E. 588;Weber v. Bridgman, 113 N. Y. 600, 607,21 N. E. 985;Bernheimer v. Rindskopf, 116 N. Y. 428, 436,22 N. E. 1074;Aldridge v. Aldridge, 120 N. Y. 614, 617,24 N. E. 1022;Devlin v. Bank, 125 N. Y. 756, 26 N. E. 744;Phoenix Iron Co. v. The Hopatcong, 127 N. Y. 206, 212,27 N. E. 841; Railroad......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT