Hyperlawhypertext legal database Sullivan v. New York City Railway Co. 94 N.Y.S. 370

← Cases

Sullivan v. New York City Railway Co.

94 N.Y.S. 370 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1905-06-22 English

Contents

Majority

p. 370
SULLIVAN v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 22, 1905.)

Headnote

Verdict of Jury—Sufficiency.
A verdict “for the full amount claimed” is sufficient within Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, p. 1560, c. 580, § 239, declaring that the verdict must be “for a specific sum," the court in its charge stating the specific amount claimed.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent Dig. Trial, §§ 781, 784-787.] '
Appeal • from -Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.
Action by Katie Sullivan against the New York City Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Conditionally affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and MacLEAN and DUGRO, JJ.
William E. Weaver, for appellant.
Frank A. Acer, for respondent.

It may not well be said herein that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of evidence, nor that the verdict was not legal in form because rendered for “the full amount claimed,” instead of for “a specific sum,” as required by section 239 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1560, c. 580); for the jury were informed by the trial justice in his charge of the specific amount claimed, and so their verdict may be said to have been sufficiently rendered for a specific sum. The verdict, however, is excessive, and should be reduced to" $250.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, unless the plaintiff stipulates that the judgment in the court below be reduced to $250, in which case the judgment, as modified, is affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.