Carter v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Carter v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

86 N.Y.S. 206

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 25, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 86 N.Y.S. 206 (Carter v. Interurban Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carter v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 86 N.Y.S. 206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict of the jury after its rendition was granted by the trial justice upon terms with which the defendant refused to comply upon the ground that the conditions imposed were too onerous in view of the small. [207]*207amount involved. It is well settled that, where a verdict is set aside as against the weight of evidence, costs should be imposed as a condition of granting the new trial, even in a case of seeming hardship. O’Shea v. McLear, 15 Civ. Proc. R. 69, 1 N. Y. Supp. 407. The defendant does not appeal from the order entered upon the motion to set aside the verdict. We are not, therefore, in a position to review the question of the unreasonableness of the terms imposed. As the record now appears, the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict prevailed, and yet it failed to avail itself of the benefits of the order made thereon. Under these circumstances the defendant has no ground for complaint, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed; with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict of the jury after its rendition was granted by the trial justice upon terms with which the defendant refused to comply upon the ground that the conditions imposed were too onerous in view of the small. [207]*207amount involved. It is well settled that, where a verdict is set aside as against the weight of evidence, costs should be imposed as a condition of granting the new trial, even in a case of seeming hardship. O’Shea v. McLear, 15 Civ. Proc. R. 69, 1 N. Y. Supp. 407. The defendant does not appeal from the order entered upon the motion to set aside the verdict. We are not, therefore, in a position to review the question of the unreasonableness of the terms imposed. As the record now appears, the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict prevailed, and yet it failed to avail itself of the benefits of the order made thereon. Under these circumstances the defendant has no ground for complaint, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed; with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.Y.S. 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack