Majority
p. 27Catharine Victory, Resp’t, v. Bridget Foran, App’lt. (New York Superior Court, General Term, Filed February, 1889.)
Headnote
1. Negligence—Landlord and tenant—Dangerous premises.Where in an action by a tenant against a landlord to recover for injuries received from falling down a stairway on the leased premises, it is shown by plaintiff that the fall was occasioned by her dress catching on a nail in one of the steps, while she was descending the stairway, and that the agent of the defendant had notice of the condition of the stairway, Held, not error to refuse to dismiss the complaint.
3. Appeal—When order denying new trial not reviewed.
The court will not review on appeal an order denying a motion for a new trial, unless it has been formally entered, and appears in the printed case.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $1,500, rendered at trial term.
Action by plaintiff to recover for injuries received by falling down a stairway in defendant’s house. Plaintiff was a tenant of defendant, and, while descending the stairway, her dress caught on a nail protruding from one of the steps, and she was thrown to the bottom. The defendant’s agent had notice of the condition of the stairway.
C. H. and F. L. Crawford, for app’lt; James A. O’ Gorman and Chrisfophei Fine, for resp’t.
Although the notice of appeal states that the defendant appeals from the judgment, and from the order refusing to grant a new trial, made after the verdict was rendered, yet the case does not contain any such order. We have frequently held that we will not review, on appeal; an order denying a motion for a new trial, unless that order shall have been formally entered, and appears in the printed case. There was no error in the way the case was presented to the jury. In fact, there are but two exceptions in the
p. 28
case; one on the admission of testimony, the other on the refusal to dismiss the complaint. The first exception was not referred to by the appellant on the argument. It was not well taken, because the testimony that the question brought forth tended to show, in a proper way, the defendant’s negligence. Nor was it error to refuse to dismiss the complaint. There was evidence that would warrant the jury in finding that the plaintiff was injured, without negligence. on her part, through the negligence of the defendant. While the damages seem to be quite large, we cannot gay that they are so large that the jury must have been influenced by prejudice or passion in awarding them.
Judgment affirmed, with costs to, the respondent.
All concur.