Kaplan v. New York Biscuit Co.

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtHAIGHT
Citation45 N.E. 353,151 N.Y. 171
Decision Date08 December 1896
PartiesKAPLAN v. NEW YORK BISCUIT CO.

151 N.Y. 171
45 N.E. 353

KAPLAN
v.
NEW YORK BISCUIT CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 8, 1896.


Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, First department.

Action by Simon Kaplan, an infant, by his guardian, against the New York Biscuit Company. A judgment for plaintiff having been affirmed by the appellate division of the supreme court (38 N. Y. Supp. 1049), the defendant appealed. Plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal. Denied.


[151 N.Y. 171]Hamilton Wallis, for appellant.

David Leventritt, for respondent.


HAIGHT, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for a personal injury. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, which has been affirmed by the appellate division. This court has no power to review, if the judgment of affirmance was unanimous. Code Civ. Proc. § 191. The judgment entered does not state that the decision was unanimous, and that fact does not appear of record. The respondent's affidavit read upon this motion, as we understand it, is based upon information

[45 N.E. 354]

derived from the opinion of the court reported in 5 App. Div. 60,38 N. Y. Supp. 1049, in which it appears that all the judges concurred. It, however, appears from the affidavits presented on the part of the appellant that the respondent moved in the appellate division for an order correcting the judgment entered, so as to state that the decision of that court was unanimous, and that the motion was denied by the court, from which we are asked to infer that the decision was not unanimous. The fact is peculiarly within the knowledge of the judges of the appellate division, and we think that we ought not to [151 N.Y. 172]be compelled to determine it from conflicting affidavits, inferences, or presumptions, but that it should be disposed of by the judgment or by a certificate of the court appearing in the record. The opinion written in a case may furnish information upon which a party may found a belief as to the fact, but it is not conclusive, and this court will not rely upon it for the purpose of determining facts which do not appear of record. Rosenstein v. Fox, 150 N. Y. 354, 44 N. E. 1027. The judgment is reviewable in this court unless the affirmance was by the unanimous decision of the judges composing the appellate division. The burden of showing that it was rests upon the party asserting it. This, like other facts, should appear from the record. The motion should be denied, but, under the circumstances, without costs, and with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 21, 1908
    ...to the sidewalks. (Fuller v. Kemp, 33 N.E. 1034.) A compromise must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. (Bank v. Galvin, 45 N.E. 353; Grove v. Bush, 53 N.W. 88.) An examination of the bill in question will clearly show that the subject of damage for change of grade was never ......
  • Laidlaw v. Sage,
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • January 10, 1899
    ...claimed that the appeal was not well taken, the burden of showing that fact rested upon him. In [158 N.Y. 88]Kaplan v. Biscuit Co., 151 N. Y. 171, 45 N. E. 353, this court held that the burden of showing that a judgment of affirmance in an action for a personal injury was by a unanimous dec......
  • Edwards v. Barnes
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 8, 1896
    ...estate for the payment of debts, there are no sufficient assets for the payment of the claim of the appellant or of the other creditors [45 N.E. 353]whose claims have been allowed by the commissioners.[167 Mass. 209]T.G. Kent, G.T. Dewey, and J.C.F. Wheelock, for appellant.F.P. Goulding and......
  • Edwards v. Barnes
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 8, 1896
    ...estate for the payment of debts, there are no sufficient assets for the payment of the claim of the appellant or of the other creditors [45 N.E. 353] whose claims have been allowed by the commissioners. COUNSEL [167 Mass. 209] T.G. Kent, G.T. Dewey, and J.C.F. Wheelock, for appellant. F.P. ......
4 cases
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 21, 1908
    ...to the sidewalks. (Fuller v. Kemp, 33 N.E. 1034.) A compromise must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. (Bank v. Galvin, 45 N.E. 353; Grove v. Bush, 53 N.W. 88.) An examination of the bill in question will clearly show that the subject of damage for change of grade was never ......
  • Laidlaw v. Sage,
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • January 10, 1899
    ...claimed that the appeal was not well taken, the burden of showing that fact rested upon him. In [158 N.Y. 88]Kaplan v. Biscuit Co., 151 N. Y. 171, 45 N. E. 353, this court held that the burden of showing that a judgment of affirmance in an action for a personal injury was by a unanimous dec......
  • Edwards v. Barnes
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 8, 1896
    ...estate for the payment of debts, there are no sufficient assets for the payment of the claim of the appellant or of the other creditors [45 N.E. 353]whose claims have been allowed by the commissioners.[167 Mass. 209]T.G. Kent, G.T. Dewey, and J.C.F. Wheelock, for appellant.F.P. Goulding and......
  • Edwards v. Barnes
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 8, 1896
    ...estate for the payment of debts, there are no sufficient assets for the payment of the claim of the appellant or of the other creditors [45 N.E. 353] whose claims have been allowed by the commissioners. COUNSEL [167 Mass. 209] T.G. Kent, G.T. Dewey, and J.C.F. Wheelock, for appellant. F.P. ......

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