Jacobs v. Choc-Lo Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jacobs v. Choc-Lo Co.

216 A.D. 791

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

DecidedApril 15, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D. 791 (Jacobs v. Choc-Lo 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

Jacobs v. Choc-Lo Co., 216 A.D. 791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff obtained a verdict from the jury against the defendant Conrad Hubert personally and also against the corporation of which he was president, upon the theory that he was employed both by the corporation and by the defendant Hubert personally. The verdict was set aside solely because of error in the admission of evidence. Additional grounds having been urged upon the motion to set aside the verdict, we are in a position to consider those grounds. (Logan v. Guggenheim, 230 N. Y. 19.) We have reached the conclusion that the verdict was not only based upon erroneous evidence but that it was clearly against the weight of the credible evidence and should have been set aside on that additional ground. The order should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Merrell, McAvoy and Martin, JJ. Order affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff obtained a verdict from the jury against the defendant Conrad Hubert personally and also against the corporation of which he was president, upon the theory that he was employed both by the corporation and by the defendant Hubert personally. The verdict was set aside solely because of error in the admission of evidence. Additional grounds having been urged upon the motion to set aside the verdict, we are in a position to consider those grounds. (Logan v. Guggenheim, 230 N. Y. 19.) We have reached the conclusion that the verdict was not only based upon erroneous evidence but that it was clearly against the weight of the credible evidence and should have been set aside on that additional ground. The order should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Merrell, McAvoy and Martin, JJ. Order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D. 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-choc-lo-co-nyappdiv-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack