Hyperlawhypertext legal database Nicholson v. Moriarty 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 12

← Cases

Nicholson v. Moriarty

68 N.Y. St. Rep. 12 Court N.Y.C.P. Decision date 1895-06-03 English

Delivered by Bischoff, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 12
Ethel F. Nicholson, Resp’t, v. Kate F. Moriarty, App’lt
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed June 3, 1895.)

Headnote

1. New trial — District court.
A justice of the New York district court has no power to set aside a. verdict and grant a new trial.
2. Appeal — Interlocutory order — District court.
No appeal lies to the common pleas from an interlocutory order of a district court.
Appeal from a judgment, entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff.-
R. R. Root, for app’lt; E. M. Wright, for resp’t.

— Defendant appeals from the judgment entered in this action, and also asks us to review the determination of the justice in denying a motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. This verdict was rendered after appearance by the defendant, and active litigation of the issues; hence the justice was without power to grant the motion, as we have lately held in the case of Zimmerman v. Bloch, 66 St. Rep. 358 , and his ruling was correct. Morever, no appeal lies to this court from an interlocutory order tif a district court. Jacobs v. Zeltner, 9 Misc. Rep. 455 ; 61 St. Rep. 104 ; Wensley v. Randolph, 9 Misc. Rep. 457 ; 61 St. Rep. 131 .

The judgment is assailed as against the weight of the evidence, no exceptions having been taken upon the trial, and no objections to the charge of the justice being raised; but, upon the facts, we think that there is nti ground for disturbing the result arrived at by the jury. The ’plaintiffs claim and defendants counterclaim, respectively, rested for success upon the state of an agreement be

p. 13
tween the parties, and upon what was done thereunder. As to the terms of this agreement, and as to the extent of its performance by plaintiff, the testimony was in utter irreconcilable conflict, and no aid to ascertainment of the truth was to be derived from extraneous circumstances. Therefore, following the established rule, we decline to interfere with the jury’s conclusion upon the evidence.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cases cited