p. 432ELLIOT et al. v. VAN SCHAICK.(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.Where plaintiffs file no exceptions to direction of verdict for defendant, and no appeal is taken from an order refusing a new trial, the correctness of the order directing verdict cannot be reviewed on appeal.
Action by Harry E. Elliot and Albert L. Bouyon against Eugene "Van Schaick. From a judgment on a verdict directed by the court, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and CULLEN", BARTLETT, HATCH, and WOODWARD, JJ. ' 'John Andrews, Jr., for appellants.
Van Schaick & Horton, for respondent
At the close of the evidence, both parties requested the court to direct a verdict. By consent, the decision of these applications was reserved. Subsequently the court directed a verdict for the defendant. Under the practice adopted, no exception could have been taken on the trial to the ruling of the court, for the decision was not made until after the close of the trial. Provision for such a case is made in sections 994 and 1185 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which authorize the unsuccessful party to file a notice of exception within 10 days after the service of a copy of the decision of the court. The appellants have filed no exception to the direction of a verdict for the defendant. A motion for a new trial was made and denied, bnt.no appeal was taken from the order made on that appli
p. 433cation. We therefore have no power to review the correctness of the determination of the trial court in directing a verdict for the defendant, but are limited to a consideration of the exceptions taken on the trial. Ainley v. Railway Co., 47 Hun, 206 ;
Dixon v. Dixon, 12 N. Y. St. Rep. 505 . The exceptions taken relate solely to the admission of evidence. The appellants in their brief have not argued them, and' we think they are not well taken.
The judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.