Keller v. Schwartz

93 N.Y.S. 620
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided April 24, 1905·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The return discloses but a single exception taken by the defendant to the exclusion of wholly immaterial proof tendered by him, and fails to show that any motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case or at the conclusion of the trial had been made. Moreover, this court cannot consider arguments based upon exceptions claimed to have been taken, rulings claimed to have been made, and legal propositions affecting the rights of the parties, that might have been debatable, if legally presented. The defendants, in trying the case as they did, conceded that it involved only a question of fact, which was resolved in favor of plaintiff.

It cannot be successfully contended that there was no evidence to sustain the findings of fact, and hence the judgment must be affirmed. Lyons v. Thomas, 34 Misc. Rep. 175, 68 N. Y. Supp. 802.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Keller v. Schwartz, 93 N.Y.S. 620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

93 N.Y.S. 620 (Keller v. Schwartz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lyons v. Thomas
34 Misc. 175 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)