Einson v. North River Electric Light & Power Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Einson v. North River Electric Light & Power Co.

34 Misc. 191, 68 N.Y.S. 836

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 Misc. 191 (Einson v. North River Electric Light & Power 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

Einson v. North River Electric Light & Power Co., 34 Misc. 191, 68 N.Y.S. 836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Gorman, J.

The testimony offered by the plaintiff clearly required the submission of this case to the- jury. Clarke v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 9 App. Div. 51; O’Flaherty v. Same, 34 id. 75; Dwyer v. Buffalo General Electric Co., 20 id. 124. Indeed, this much seems to have been conceded by the defendants’ failure to except to the court’s refusal to dismiss at the close of the entire case. Rusher v. Brennan, 29 Misc. Rep. 142; 60 N. Y. Supp. 283. The charge of the learned justice was fair and correct, and as favorable as the defendants had a right to expect. Fo error was [192]*192committed in refusing to compel the plaintiff to make her election, at the opening of the case, as to whether she would proceed on the ground of negligence, or on the ground of a nuisance. The election was made at the close of the testimony, and the question as to when a party will he required to indicate an election upon the trial rests within the discretion of the court. As said in Tuthill v. Skidmore, 124 N. Y. 148, “ When, as in the case at bar, the inconsistency plainly appears on the face of the complaint, the defendants should, before answering, move that the plaintiffs be compelled to elect. Cassidy v. Daly, 11 Wkly. Dig. 222. If in such a case the defendant lies by until the trial and then moves, the court may in its discretion wait until part or all of the evidence is taken before deciding the motion.” This appeared to be the only point strenuously urged upon the argument by eóunsel for the appellants, and it is quite obvious his contention cannot be upheld. We have examined the other errors assigned, but they are all without merit, and the judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

Andbews, P. J., and Blanchaed, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

O’Gorman, J.

The testimony offered by the plaintiff clearly required the submission of this case to the- jury. Clarke v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 9 App. Div. 51; O’Flaherty v. Same, 34 id. 75; Dwyer v. Buffalo General Electric Co., 20 id. 124. Indeed, this much seems to have been conceded by the defendants’ failure to except to the court’s refusal to dismiss at the close of the entire case. Rusher v. Brennan, 29 Misc. Rep. 142; 60 N. Y. Supp. 283. The charge of the learned justice was fair and correct, and as favorable as the defendants had a right to expect. Fo error was [192]*192committed in refusing to compel the plaintiff to make her election, at the opening of the case, as to whether she would proceed on the ground of negligence, or on the ground of a nuisance. The election was made at the close of the testimony, and the question as to when a party will he required to indicate an election upon the trial rests within the discretion of the court. As said in Tuthill v. Skidmore, 124 N. Y. 148, “ When, as in the case at bar, the inconsistency plainly appears on the face of the complaint, the defendants should, before answering, move that the plaintiffs be compelled to elect. Cassidy v. Daly, 11 Wkly. Dig. 222. If in such a case the defendant lies by until the trial and then moves, the court may in its discretion wait until part or all of the evidence is taken before deciding the motion.” This appeared to be the only point strenuously urged upon the argument by eóunsel for the appellants, and it is quite obvious his contention cannot be upheld. We have examined the other errors assigned, but they are all without merit, and the judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

Andbews, P. J., and Blanchaed, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Misc. 191, 68 N.Y.S. 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/einson-v-north-river-electric-light-power-co-nyappterm-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack