Hyperlawhypertext legal database Roessle v. Lancaster 125 N.Y.S. 753

← Cases

Roessle v. Lancaster

125 N.Y.S. 753 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1910-11-25 English

Decision Majority — PER CURIAM. · Dissent — LAUGHLIN, J.

Contents
p. 753
ROESSLE v. LANCASTER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
November 25, 1910.)

Headnote

Appeal and Error (§ 999*)—Verdict—Conclusiveness.
Where the questions indicated on appeal were on the subsequent trial presented to the jury, as required by the decision, the verdict of the jury should control.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3912-3924; Dec. Dig. § 999.*]
Laughlin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by Elwood O. Roessle against Frederick J. Lancaster. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, LAUGH-LIN, MILLER, and DOWLING, JJ.
Charles F. Brown, for appellant.
John Ewen, for respondent.

The questions in this case were substantially determined on the former appeal. 130 App. Div. 1 , 114 N. Y. Supp. 387 . No further discussion of the case is necessary; and, as the questions there indicated were presented to the jury, their verdict should control. The judgment and order are therefore affirmed, with costs.

I dissent, on the ground that the court ,erred in charging the plaintiff’s fifth request.