Hyperlawhypertext legal database Deegan v. Metropolitan St. Railway Co. 64 N.Y.S. 12

← Cases

Deegan v. Metropolitan St. Railway Co.

64 N.Y.S. 12 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1900-04-16 English

Delivered by GIEGERICH, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 12
DEEGAN v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
April 16, 1900.)

Headnote

Appeal—Questions of Fact—Conflicting Evidence.
Where the only questions involved on appeal arise from a determination of the facts, as to which there was a conflict of testimony, and there was evidence to warrant the finding, the judgment of such court will not be disturbed.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan. Ninth district.
Action by Dennis Deegan against the Metropolitan Street-Railway Company to recover damages. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and GIEGERICH and O’GORMAN, JJ.
La Fetra & Glaze (E. B. La Fetra, of counsel), for appellant.
Henry A. Robinson and John T. little, Jr., for respondent.

The only questions involved upon this appeal arise from a determination of the facts, as to which there was a conflict of testimony. The finding of the justice in favor of the defendant is warranted by the evidence," and we see no reason for disturbing such determination in the absence of the elements which are requisite to a review of the facts. Lynes v. Hickey, 4 Misc. Rep. 522 , 24 N. Y. Supp. 731 . As we are unable to discover any ground for disturbing the judgment, it should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cases cited