Carlson v. Winterson — 49 N.Y. St. Rep. 39

Majority

p. 39

Louisa Carlson, Resp’t, v. Maria Louisa Winterson, App’lt

(City Court of New York, General Term,

Filed November 25, 1892.)

Headnote

Appeal—Case.

Where the case on appeal does not disclose any order denying a motion for a- new trial, hut merely contains a statement of a motion to set aside the verdict, the court will not review any question of fact, but merely look to see if any errors of law were committed.

Appeal from judgment entered on a verdict of the jury in favor of plaintiff.

E. F. Bullard, for app’lt; H. M. Hitchings, for resp’t.

The case on appeal does not disclose any order denying the motion for a new trial.

The statement in the case of a motion to set aside the verdict is not equivalent to an order.

In view of this fact, the court will not review any questions of fact, but merely look to see if any errors of law were committed. Code, § 1477; Boos v. World M. L. I. Co., 4 Hun, 133 ; 64 N. Y.t 236, 242 ; Ehrman v. Rothschild, 23 Hun, 273 ; Matthews v. Meyberg, 63 N. Y., 656 ; Coakley v. Mahar, 36 Hun, 159 ; Hinman v. Stillwell, 34 id., 178 ; Thurber v. Harlem B., M. & F. R. R. Co., 60 N. Y, 326 , 328.

We have failed to discover any error in admitting or excluding evidence, or in passing on the requests to charge.

Some of the propositions were correct as abstract principles, but inapplicable to the state of the proofs presented.

The judgment appealed from must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Fitzsimons and Newburger, JJ., concur.