Majority
p. 562WELLING v. MORRELL. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department. December 30, 1915.)
Headnote
3, Appeal and Error <§=>664;—Amount or Judgment—Record.The record containing the judgment actually rendered, and showing the amount thereof to be §240, would control over the stenographer’s minutes, showing that the trial justice said, “Judgment * * * for $367,” that being evidently a mistake.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2856-2859; Dec. Dig. <S=>664.]
<§E^>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
p. 563Argued December term, 1915, before GUY, PAGE, and PHÍEBIN, JJ.
2. Appeal and Ebrob @=>1151—Modification—Amount of Judgment.
Where a correct computation showed that plaintiff was entitled to judgment for but $238, though the record showed judgment actually rendered for $240, the judgment would be modified, by reducing the amount to $238.
[Ed. Note.-—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4498-4506; Dec. Dig. @=>1151.]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
Action by Richard Welling against Gerald Morrell. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Modified and affirmed.
John T. Loew, of New York City, for appellant.
Sobel & Brand, of New York City, for respondent.
[1, 2] At the end of the stenographer’s minutes in this case it appears that the justice who tried the case said: “Judgment for the plaintiff for $367.” This was evidently a mistake, as the judgment actually rendered was for the sum of $240, as appears by the judgment contained in the record, which must control. A correct computation, however, shows that the plaintiff is entitled to but $238.
Judgment modified, by reducing the amount of recovery to the sum of $238, with appropriate costs in the court below, and, as modified, affirmed, with $25 costs to the respondent.