Kellegher v. Forty-Second Street, Manhattanville & St. Nicholas Avenue Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kellegher v. Forty-Second Street, Manhattanville & St. Nicholas Avenue Railway Co.

84 N.Y.S. 784, 87 A.D. 630

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 784 (Kellegher v. Forty-Second Street, Manhattanville & St. Nicholas Avenue Railway 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

Kellegher v. Forty-Second Street, Manhattanville & St. Nicholas Avenue Railway Co., 84 N.Y.S. 784, 87 A.D. 630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

INGRAHAM, J.

The only attack upon this judgment by the appellant is that the verdict of the jury is against the weight of evidence. When the case was before this court on a former appeal (56 App. Div. 332, 67 N. Y. Supp. 767), it was held that the question was one for the jury, and the judgment was affirmed. There was a dissent in that case, based entirely upon an exception to the charge. Upon an appeal to the Court of Appeals (171 N. Y. 309, 63 N. E. 1096) that judgment was reversed upon the ground that there was error in the charge, to which the defendant excepted, and which entitled the defendant to a new trial. We think that, in view of this determination of the court upon the former appeal, we would not be justified m setting aside the verdict upon the ground that it was against the weight of evidence.

It follows that the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

INGRAHAM, J.

The only attack upon this judgment by the appellant is that the verdict of the jury is against the weight of evidence. When the case was before this court on a former appeal (56 App. Div. 332, 67 N. Y. Supp. 767), it was held that the question was one for the jury, and the judgment was affirmed. There was a dissent in that case, based entirely upon an exception to the charge. Upon an appeal to the Court of Appeals (171 N. Y. 309, 63 N. E. 1096) that judgment was reversed upon the ground that there was error in the charge, to which the defendant excepted, and which entitled the defendant to a new trial. We think that, in view of this determination of the court upon the former appeal, we would not be justified m setting aside the verdict upon the ground that it was against the weight of evidence.

It follows that the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 784, 87 A.D. 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kellegher-v-forty-second-street-manhattanville-st-nicholas-avenue-nyappdiv-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack