Horwitz v. Reinert — 84 N.Y.S. 254

Majority

p. 254

HORWITZ v. REINERT.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

Headnote

1. Appeal—Judgment—Evidence—Sufficiency.

A judgment supported by evidence allowed to go in generally withput objection, and without the taking of a tenable exception, will not be disturbed on appeal, though the evidence is slight.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second Dis- ■ trict.

Action by Isaac Horwitz against Ferdinand Reinert. From a judg-. ment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

James E. Smith, for appellant.

Nathaniel Levy, for respondent.

This is an appeal from a judgment for damages to personal property of the plaintiff, whose cart containing notions, fancy goods, and hardware was run down by a wagon belonging to the defendant,, and driven by one of his employés. ' Although resting upon very slight proof, and seemingly for a large amount, the judgment may not be disturbed, as the evidence, slight as it is, was allowed to go in, generally without objection, and without the taking of a tenable exception.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent.