Majority
p. 90Rosa Chaimson, Resp’t, v. Henry Henshing, App’lt. (New York City Court, General Term, Filed April 9, 1895.)
Headnote
-Appeal — Questions op pact. Where, upon the denial of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, no order was entered, only questions of law are presented for review on appeal.Appeal from judgment, entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff.
Thomas B. Osbron and H. C. Botty, for app’lt; Robert Goeller, for resp’t.
The action is to recover damages for injuries by the plaintiff consequence of negligence of the defendant. The proofs were sufficient to require the trial judge to submit the questions of negligence and contributory negligence to the jury. He did so submit them as favorably to the defendant as the facts warranted, and the jury rendered a verdict for •the plaintiff in the sum of $150. On the coming in of the verdict,
p. 91
defendant’s counsel moved for a new trial, on the ground that the vei’dict was contrary to law and the evidence; but no order was entered on the denial of the motion. So that we are called upon to review only the questions of law presented by the record. Peil v. Reinhart, 127 N. Y. 381 , 385; 38 St. Rep. 913 ; Wright v. Hunter, 46 N Y. 409 .
We find no error of law, and it follows that the judgment appealed must be affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
Cases cited
- Peil v. Reinhart 127 N. Y. 381 at 385 p. 91
- Wright v. Hunter 46 N Y. 409 p. 91