Hyperlawhypertext legal database Koropjeck v. Bohack 160 A.D. 924

← Cases

Koropjeck v. Bohack

160 A.D. 924 Court N.Y. App. Div. English

Decision Majority · Dissent — Iegraham, P. J., and McLattg-hlie, J.,

Contents
p. 924
Tessie Koropjeck, Respondent, v. Henry C. Bohack, Appellant.

Headnote

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Corot, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 15th day’of March, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order entered on the 14th day of March, 1913, denying a motion for a new trial.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ. ; Ingraham, P. J., and McLaughlin, J., dissented.

dissent on the ground that it was error to refuse to charge the defendant’s fifth request, which is as follows: “ The fact that Bennett was not called by either side raises no more presumption in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant than it does in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.”