TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bassett v. French

Charles O. Bassett, Appellant and Respondent, v. Thomas Henry French, Respondent and Appellant

Bassett v. French, 49 N.E. 325 (N.Y. 1898)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 1, 1898
Judges
Parker
Citations
49 N.E. 325155 N.Y. 461898 N.Y. LEXIS 841
Headnotes
1. Assessment op Damages on Default not Reyibwable in Court of Appeals. A proceeding for the assessment of the plaintiffs damages, after his cause of action has been admitted by the defendant’s failure to answer, is not the subject of review in the Court of Appeals. 2. Method of Review. The method of review in such cases is by motion to set aside the inquisition, which, being largely addressed to the discretion of the Special Term of the trial court, is the subject of review by the appellate branch of the same court, and by that court only.
Summary
Cross-appeals from a judgment of the General Term of the late Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of Hew York, entered January 10, 1895, modifying, and affirming as modified, a judgment of the Special Term of that court in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. This action was brought to recover damages for the alleged wrongful discharge of plaintiff from defendant’s service. . The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Parker

Parker, Ch. J.

The complaint alleged the making of a contract between the plaintiff and defendant, breach thereof by the defendant, and demanded judgment in the sum of three thousand dollars.

The defendant by his attorney served a notice of appearance, but made default in answering, whereupon the plaintiff, in pursuance of § 1216 of the Code and upon notice, made application to the court at Special Term for an order of reference to ascertain and assess the damages. The court adjudged the plaintiff to be entitled to the damages by him sustained on account of the cause of action alleged in the com *47 plaint, and appointed a referee to assess them. The referee, attended by the counsel for both parties, took the evidence offered, and assessed the damages at $2,719.66, for which amount a judgment was subsequently entered. An appeal was thereafter taken to the General Term, which court modified the judgment by deducting therefrom the sum of $300, and as thus modified the judgment was affirmed. From such judgment both parties have attempted to appeal to this court, having apparently overlooked the case of Bossout v. R., W. & O. R. R. Co.

( 131 N. Y. 37 ), which holds that a proceeding for the assessment of damages, whether taken after a plaintiff’s cause of action has been admitted by the defendant’s failure to answer, or after the affirmance of an order granting a new trial and the entry of judgment absolute thereon, is not the subject of review in this court. The method of review in such cases is by motion to set aside the inquisition, which is largely addressed to the discretion of the Special Term, and is, therefore, the subject of review by the appellate branch of the same court, and by that court only.

The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1901: 11903: 11905: 31912: 11914: 11930: 11932: 119012026peak 1905 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mathot v. Triebel92 N.Y.S. 512 (1905)
  2. Jensen v. Union Railway Co.182 N.E. 226 (N.Y. 1932) · Dissent
  3. City Trust, Safe Deposit & Surety Co. of Philadelphia v. American Brewing Co.74 N.E. 848 (N.Y. 1905) · Dissent
  4. Fahey v. Kennedy230 A.D. 156 (1930)
  5. Lawson v. Hilton89 A.D. 303 (1903)
  6. Mathot v. Triebel102 A.D. 426 (1905)

Most recent

  1. Jensen v. Union Railway Co.182 N.E. 226 (N.Y. 1932) · Dissent
  2. Fahey v. Kennedy230 A.D. 156 (1930)
  3. Sauerbrunn v. Hartford Life Insurance165 A.D. 506 (1914)
  4. Trieber v. New York & Queens County Railway Co.149 A.D. 804 (1912)
  5. Mathot v. Triebel102 A.D. 426 (1905)
  6. City Trust, Safe Deposit & Surety Co. of Philadelphia v. American Brewing Co.74 N.E. 848 (N.Y. 1905) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Bossout v. Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburg R. R. Co., 29 N.E. 753 (N.Y. 1892) 17

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list