History
  • No items yet
midpage
19 Johns. 172
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1821
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.
Log In
    Bellows & Hopkins v. Pearson, 19 Johns. 172