Goelet v. Ross

The Superior Court of New York City

Goelet v. Ross

15 Abb. Pr. 251

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedOctober 15, 1862

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Abb. Pr. 251 (Goelet v. Ross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goelet v. Ross, 15 Abb. Pr. 251 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1862).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

*—Moncrief, J.

The counsel for the appellants, upon the argument of this appeal, conceded that the sole question arising therein is, “ Is the weight of evidence against the direction by the learned judge to find a verdict against the defendants ?” and he was understood to waive all other questions and exceptions. In other words, his proposition was: “ In case the evidence had been submitted to the jury, who had found for the defendant, would such verdict be set aside ?■” A very careful examination of the testimony in the case has not enabled me to discover evidence upon which a verdict for the defendant could have been sustained. (2 Smith’s Lead. Cas., 459, a, b, c.) The learned judge, therefore, correctly directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. It would have been error to have refused to do so. (Steves a. Oswego & Syracuse R. R. Co., 18 N. Y, 422.)

The judgment must be affirmed.

Present, Moncrief, Robertson, and Monell, JJ.

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

By the Court.

*—Moncrief, J.

The counsel for the appellants, upon the argument of this appeal, conceded that the sole question arising therein is, “ Is the weight of evidence against the direction by the learned judge to find a verdict against the defendants ?” and he was understood to waive all other questions and exceptions. In other words, his proposition was: “ In case the evidence had been submitted to the jury, who had found for the defendant, would such verdict be set aside ?■” A very careful examination of the testimony in the case has not enabled me to discover evidence upon which a verdict for the defendant could have been sustained. (2 Smith’s Lead. Cas., 459, a, b, c.) The learned judge, therefore, correctly directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. It would have been error to have refused to do so. (Steves a. Oswego & Syracuse R. R. Co., 18 N. Y, 422.)

The judgment must be affirmed.

Present, Moncrief, Robertson, and Monell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Abb. Pr. 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goelet-v-ross-nysuperctnyc-1862.