Goldzier v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldzier v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey

90 N.Y.S. 435

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 10, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 90 N.Y.S. 435 (Goldzier v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey) 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

Goldzier v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 90 N.Y.S. 435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

While the plaintiff may not have established a right to substantial damages, there was still ample evidence to take the case to the jury upon the question of the defendant’s breach of contract to transport the passenger, and the direction of a verdict for the defendant defeated the plaintiff’s right to a judgment upon a permissible verdict for at least nominal damages. Costs of an earlier appeal, taken successfully by this plaintiff, depended upon the result.of the trial, and a correct disposal of the case, if resulting in judgment for the plain[436]*436tiff, would also have saved her from the costs awarded to the defendant. The error in the direction of a verdict, therefore, cannot be viewed as affecting a barren right; and the plaintiff is entitled to a reversal of this judgment for the purpose of protecting her substantial interest, notwithstanding that she may ultimately Recover no more than nominal damages. Moore v. R. R. Co., 4 Misc. Rep. 133, 33 N. Y. Supp. 863.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

While the plaintiff may not have established a right to substantial damages, there was still ample evidence to take the case to the jury upon the question of the defendant’s breach of contract to transport the passenger, and the direction of a verdict for the defendant defeated the plaintiff’s right to a judgment upon a permissible verdict for at least nominal damages. Costs of an earlier appeal, taken successfully by this plaintiff, depended upon the result.of the trial, and a correct disposal of the case, if resulting in judgment for the plain[436]*436tiff, would also have saved her from the costs awarded to the defendant. The error in the direction of a verdict, therefore, cannot be viewed as affecting a barren right; and the plaintiff is entitled to a reversal of this judgment for the purpose of protecting her substantial interest, notwithstanding that she may ultimately Recover no more than nominal damages. Moore v. R. R. Co., 4 Misc. Rep. 133, 33 N. Y. Supp. 863.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 N.Y.S. 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldzier-v-central-r-co-of-new-jersey-nyappterm-1904.