TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Borley v. Wheeler & Wilson S. Manufacturing Co.

Borley v. Wheeler & Wilson S. M. Co.

Borley v. Wheeler & Wilson S. Mfg. Co., 12 N.Y.S. 45 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
December 12, 1890
Judges
Learned
Citations
12 N.Y.S. 4534 N.Y. St. Rep. 98758 Hun 6051890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3541
Headnotes
1. Appeal—Review—Absence of Exceptions. In the absence of exceptions, rulings made upon a trial cannot be reviewed. 2. Same—Continuance—Discretion. Adjournments are in the discretion of the trial judge, and rulings in regard thereto will not be disturbed, unless in case of abuse.
Summary
Appeal from judgment on report of referee. Action by John Borley against Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Company to recover for services performed as a canvasser. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

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

Opinion of the Court — Learned

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Learned, P. J.

There are no exceptions in this case, except to the refusal to adjourn. Therefore none of the rulings made on defendant’s objection can be heard. This is settled in Briggs v. Waldron, 83 N. Y. 582 , where the court would not hear an argument'on rulings, although there was a stipulation that it was understood upon the trial that an exception followed every objection. The reasons given by the court of appeals in that case are very sound; the rule there stated should seldom, if ever, be disregarded.

On the refusal to adjourn, we need only say that adjournments are in the discretion of the trial court. We should not interfere, unless in case of abuse, and nothing of that kind appears. The defendant claims that certain findings of the referee are unsupported by evidence, especially as to the. Dorsey sale, and as to commissions. But the evidence to support these findings is in the case; only the defendant claims that it was improperly admitted! *46 As above stated, the defendant did not except to the admission of the evidence, and therefore we have nothing to review. In the language of the case above cited, which should be fully understood, “the provisions of law, which require a party desiring to renew rulings upon a trial to take exceptions in proper form, are established for the convenience of courts as well as for the protection of parties; and the latter cannot by stipulation have their cases heard on appeal without regard to these provisions.” Judgment affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1893: 21894: 118932026peak 1893 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Keller v. Feldmann21 N.Y.S. 581 (1893)
  2. Whitney v. Whitney28 N.Y.S. 214 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1894)
  3. Keller v. Feldman29 Abb. N. Cas. 426 (1893)

Most recent

  1. Whitney v. Whitney28 N.Y.S. 214 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1894)
  2. Keller v. Feldman29 Abb. N. Cas. 426 (1893)
  3. Keller v. Feldmann21 N.Y.S. 581 (1893)

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
Briggs v. Waldron, 83 N.Y. 582 (1881) 12

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