Hartman v. S & M Forwarding Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hartman v. S & M Forwarding Co.

256 A.D. 889, 9 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9260

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 5, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 889 (Hartman v. S & M Forwarding Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hartman v. S & M Forwarding Co., 256 A.D. 889, 9 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event, unless the plaintiff shall, within ten days, stipulate to reduce the verdict to the sum of $5,500, $500 of which relates to the second cause of action, as of the date of the rendition thereof, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly and, as so modified, is, together with the order, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: Examination of the record convinces us that a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants is supported by the evidence and is not against its weight. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event, unless the plaintiff shall, within ten days, stipulate to reduce the verdict to the sum of $5,500, $500 of which relates to the second cause of action, as of the date of the rendition thereof, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly and, as so modified, is, together with the order, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: Examination of the record convinces us that a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants is supported by the evidence and is not against its weight. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 889, 9 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartman-v-s-m-forwarding-co-nyappdiv-1939.