Sugden v. Peiser — 112 N.Y.S. 1084

Majority

p. 1084

SUGDEN v. PEISER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 24, 1908.)

Headnote

Appeal and Erbob (§ 864*)—Review—Questions. Considered.

*For other oases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Upon an appeal from a judgment alone nothing but questions of law can be considered.

[Ed. Note.—For o.ther cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3456-3461; Dec. Dig. § 864.*]

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term. !

Action by Edward D. Sugden against Isaac Peiser. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before GIEDERSEEEVE, P. J., and MacEEAN and SEA-BURY, JJ. • . .

William R. Bayes, for appellant.

Prince & Nathan (Alfred'B. Nathan, of counsel), for respondent.

This is an appeal taken by the defendant from a judgment of the city court in' favor of the plaintiff. The notice of appeal also purported to appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial. Upon motion, however, the appeal from the order was dismissed, leaving for consideration ■ of this, court the appeal from the judgment only. Upon an appeal from a judgment alone nothing but questions' of law can be considered. Francis v. Tilyou, 26 App. Div. 340 , 49 N. Y. Supp. 799 . The defendant cites but three questions, the answers to which were excluded by the court,' and the exclusion of, the answers to these questions are the only errors of law urged by the defendant as a ground for a reversal. An examination of' the record shows that the objections made to those questions were properly sustained, and that reversible error was not committed by the trial justice in refusing to permit them to be answered.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.