Clark v. Mosher
| Decision Date | 11 October 1887 |
| Citation | 107 N.Y. 118,14 N.E. 96 |
| Parties | CLARK v. MOSHER, Adm'r, etc. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from general term, supreme court, Third department.
Action was brought originally against a life insurance company to recover money due on a policy on the life of the deceased husband of plaintiff, and payable to her. The company, averring that C. A. Mosher claimed the money, obtained an order allowing it to deposit the money to the order of the court, and substituting C. A. Mosher as defendant. C. A. Mosher died, and A. Mosher was appointed administrator. On the trial, the court submitted a question of fact to a jury, and the jury answered the question ‘Yes.’ The defendant moved the court to set aside the verdict, and find the fact in the negative. The court granted the motion and rendered judgment for the defendant.
N. C. Moak, for appellant.
E. Countryman, for respondent.
If the counsel for the defendant was right in the position which he took at the circuit,-that this was an equity case triable by the court,-the practice adopted by the trial judge in impaneling a jury and submitting to it a single question of fact to be answered in the affirmative or negative was correct. The judge was also right in holding that he had the power to disregard the finding of the jury on the question thus submitted, and to find the fact the contrary way, and the judgment for the defendant entered pursuant to his findings and conclusions was regular. Carroll v. Deimel, 95 N. Y. 255. The court at general term held, on the motion to set aside that judgment, that the action was one at law, for the recovery of money only, in which the plaintiff was entitled to a trial by jury; that the judge consequently had no power to disregard the verdict and substitute his own findings, and that the judgment entered thereon was irregular.
We are of opinion that the trial judge was right in holding, as claimed by the defendant, that the action was of an equitable nature and triable by the court. The plaintiff had no right of action at law against the defendant, and did not seek to recover any money from him. The money in controversy was in court, having been paid into court by a third party-the Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company-under an order made on the application of that company pursuant to section 820 of the Code. The plaintiff had brought an action at law against the company upon a policy of insurance, and the company, admitting its liability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonald v. McDonald
...two parties (two at least) are before the court, neither of whom has any semblance of a right of action at law against the other. In Clark v. Mosher, supra, a like case, in which, as Judge observed in Nelson v. Goree, 34 Ala. 565, the court was proceeding under a statute, of which ours is a......
-
Bata v. Hill
...At page 677. 'Upon this record as it comes to us, Marie and Tom 'had the better right' to the shares in suit (Clark v. Mosher, supra [107 N.Y. 118, 14 N.E 96]).' At page It is apparent from the quoted language that the New York Court of Appeals agreed that the testator did not contract eith......
-
Tishman Realty & Const. Co. v. Schmitt
...985. That plaintiffs might have sought and obtained equitable relief on the same facts by way of a declaration of rights, Clark v. Mosher, 107 N.Y. 118, 14 N.E. 96 (cf. Simler v. Conner, 372 U.S. 221, 83 S.Ct. 609, 9 L.Ed.2d 691) by way of requiring the assignment of documents, Mahnk v. Bla......
-
Lokey v. Ward
... ... and, no provision for trial by jury being expressed, it may ... safely be denied that the right exists." The court cited ... Clark v. Mosher, 107 N.Y. 118, 14 N.E. 96, 1 Am. St ... Rep. 798. The theory, as expressed in that case, is that ... "neither party had any right of ... ...
-
Parties
...is a right to a jury trial in an interpleader action, because some forms of interpleader originated in equity courts. [See Clark v. Mosher 107 NY 118 (1877); Zies v. New York Life Ins. Co. , 237 AD 367, 261 NYS 709 (1st Dept 1933).] In Geddes v. Rosen , 22 AD2d 394, 399, 255 NYS2d 585, 590 ......
-
Parties
...is a right to a jury trial in an interpleader action, because some forms of interpleader originated in equity courts. [See Clark v. Mosher 107 NY 118 (1877); Zies v. New York Life Ins. Co. , 237 AD 367, 261 NYS 709 (1st Dept 1933).] In Geddes v. Rosen , 22 AD2d 394, 399, 255 NYS2d 585, 590 ......
-
Parties
...is a right to a jury trial in an interpleader action, because some forms of interpleader originated in equity courts. [See Clark v. Mosher 107 NY 118 (1877); Zies v. New York Life Ins. Co. , 237 AD 367, 261 NYS 709 (1st Dept 1933).] In Geddes v. Rosen , 22 AD2d 394, 399, 255 NYS2d 585, 590 ......