Hyperlawhypertext legal database Mendel v. Brooklyn City R. R. 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 698

← Cases

Mendel v. Brooklyn City R. R.

32 N.Y. St. Rep. 698 Court N.Y. Gen. Term Decision date 1890-07-18 English

Delivered by Dykman, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 698
Marcus Mendel, by guardian, App’lt, v. The Brooklyn City R. R. Co., Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department
Filed July 18, 1890.)

Headnote

1. Appeal — Verdict.
Where there is evidence to sustain a verdict rendered on conflicting evidence, it will not be disturbed on appeal.
2. Trial — Requests to charge.
It is not error for the court to refuse to charge a series of abstract principles, where the principles applicable to the case have already been charged.
Appeal from judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon verdict, and from order denying motion for a new trial and to set aside the verdict as against and contrary to law, the evidence and the weight of evidence and upon the exceptions.
Action to recover damages by reason of alleged negligence of defendant in running over plaintiff, who was six years old, causing inj uries whereby he lost one of his legs. Defense, contributory negligence.
George W. Wilson (Jerry A. Wernlerg, of counsel), for app’lt; Morris & WMtéhouse, for resp’t.

This action was commenced to recover the damage resulting to the plaintiff from an injury inflicted by the horses and car of the defendant.

The action is based upon the negligence of the defendant, and the testimony upon the trial was quite contradictory. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant and the plaintiff has appealed from the judgment entered thereon.

The verdict is fully sustained by the evidence, and we cannot interfere upon the questions of fact involved after the verdict of the jury.

At the close of the charge of the trial judge several abstract principles were submitted to him with a request to charge them as they were read. All the principles involved which were applicable to the case had been charged by the judge and he declined to make any further charge. No error can be predicated upon such refusal, and therefore the exceptions are unavailing.

The judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.