Hyperlawhypertext legal database Cunningham v. Nilson 84 N.Y.S. 669

← Cases

Cunningham v. Nilson

84 N.Y.S. 669 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1903-11-06 English

Delivered by FREEDMAN, P. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 669
CUNNINGHAM v. NILSON.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
November 6, 1903.)

Headnote

L Appeal—New Tbial—Law op Case.
Where, on a former appeal, it was held on reversal that the evidence presented a question of fact for the jury, and on the retrial the judge, sitting in place of a jury, decided in favor of defendant on substantially the same state of facts, his decision will not be disturbed on appeal.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.
Action by Mary Cunningham against Eric Nilson. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.
Kneeland, La Fetra & Glaze, for appellant.
John E. Duffy, for respondent.

Upon a former appeal in this case ( 84 N. Y. Supp. 668 ) it was held that the evidence presented a question of fact which should have been presented to the jury. Substantially the same state of facts were shown upon the trial from which the present appeal comes up, and the trial judge,, sitting in place of a jury, has decided in favor of the defendant. The judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.