History
  • No items yet
midpage
Bellows & Hopkins v. Pearson
19 Johns. 172
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1821
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

We have scrutinized the evidence, and see no ground for exemplary damages. The defendants have reason to complain that the damages are outrageously excessive. That the justice, who admitted that he was the son-in-law of the plaintiff, insisted on retaining jurisdiction, was, of itself, evidence, that the trial was not fair and impartial. The judgment ought, therefore, to be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Case Details

Case Name: Bellows & Hopkins v. Pearson
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: Aug 15, 1821
Citation: 19 Johns. 172
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.