Hasbrouck v. Dickinson

New York Supreme Court

Hasbrouck v. Dickinson

34 N.Y.S. 1140, 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 607, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 872

DecidedJuly 26, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 34 N.Y.S. 1140 (Hasbrouck v. Dickinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hasbrouck v. Dickinson, 34 N.Y.S. 1140, 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 607, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 872 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PRATT, J.

We think this judgment should be affirmed. The appellants’ points present simply the question whether or not the verdict was against the evidence or the weight of evidence. No other exception is pressed. We have examined the case carefully, and are satisfied that the case was properly submitted to the jury because of conflicting evidence as to the location of the Wallace line,—the starting point for the determination of the location of the strip claimed by plaintiff. The issues were fairly put to the jury and the points of conflict of evidence so lucidly set forth in the charge that we entertain no doubt that the verdict was an intelligent finding upon the facts. Judgment and order denying motion for a new trial affirmed, with costs.

DYKMAN, J., concurs. BROWN, P. J., not voting.

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

PRATT, J.

We think this judgment should be affirmed. The appellants’ points present simply the question whether or not the verdict was against the evidence or the weight of evidence. No other exception is pressed. We have examined the case carefully, and are satisfied that the case was properly submitted to the jury because of conflicting evidence as to the location of the Wallace line,—the starting point for the determination of the location of the strip claimed by plaintiff. The issues were fairly put to the jury and the points of conflict of evidence so lucidly set forth in the charge that we entertain no doubt that the verdict was an intelligent finding upon the facts. Judgment and order denying motion for a new trial affirmed, with costs.

DYKMAN, J., concurs. BROWN, P. J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.Y.S. 1140, 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 607, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hasbrouck-v-dickinson-nysupct-1895.