Bell v. Moen's Asphaltic Cement Co.

54 N.Y.S. 1095
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bell v. Moen's Asphaltic Cement Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 32 A.D. 362

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Application denied. We are without power to grant leave, and leave is unnecessary if the plaintiff gives the stipulation prescribed by the constitution and subdivision 2 of section 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As for the suggestion that the court of appeals cannot review the unanimous determination of this court, that there is evidence to sustain a finding of fact or verdict, it is sufficient to say— First, that this court has not found that the evidence sustains the verdict, but exactly the contrary, and therefore it does not fall within the provision of the Code; second, if it did, this court would have no power to dispense with the constitutional provision limiting the power of the court of appeals on review. See 52 N. Y. Supp. 1084.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bell v. Moen's Asphaltic Cement Co., 54 N.Y.S. 1095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

54 N.Y.S. 1095 (Bell v. Moen's Asphaltic Cement Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bell v. Moen's Asphaltic Cement Co.
32 A.D. 362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)