Majority
p. 994ROMANO V. BOYD et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. February 27, 1906.) Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GIEGERICH and GREEN-BAUM, JJ.
Headnote
Judgment—Conformity to Verdict.A finding showing that the jury intended to give plaintiff the entire value of the horse in controversy, on the assumption that title and possession would remain in the defendant, will not justify a judgment giving plaintiff the entire value of the horse, with the right to resume possession.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.
Action by Salvatore Romano against Wethered J. Boyd and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Affirmed on condition.
Berry, Davis & Breen, for appellants.
Palmieri & Wechsler, for respondent.
The judgment as entered does not appear to represent the finding, of the jury. The latter evidently intended to give plaintiff the entire value of the horse, on the assumption that title and possession would remain in defendant. This is a very different thing from giving plaintiff the whole value of the horse, with the right to resume possession.
The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless plaintiff will stipulate to reduce the judgment by $75, in which case the judgment as so modified will be affirmed, without costs to either party.