Kieffer v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kieffer v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

31 Misc. 780, 65 N.Y.S. 228

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 31 Misc. 780 (Kieffer v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kieffer v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 31 Misc. 780, 65 N.Y.S. 228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover damages for injuries to person and property, resulting from defendant’s alleged negligence in causing defendant’s car to collide with plaintiff’s wagon. At the close of plaintiff’s case a motion was made to dismiss the complaint, whereupon the justice granted the motion, and in addition thereto directed a verdict for the defendant. This was a manifestly erroneous disposition of the case. We think the evidence required the submission of the case to the jury, but even assuming that the justice was right in believing that the motion to dismiss should be granted, it was improper to direct a verdict for the defendant. It was also improper to render a judgment such as the record discloses. In the Municipal Court, where a plaintiff does not prove his cause of action, the judgment should simply provide that the action is dismissed, with costs, without prejudice to a new action. § 1382, Consol. Act.

Present: Beekmae, P. J., Giegebich and O’Gobmae, JJ.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover damages for injuries to person and property, resulting from defendant’s alleged negligence in causing defendant’s car to collide with plaintiff’s wagon. At the close of plaintiff’s case a motion was made to dismiss the complaint, whereupon the justice granted the motion, and in addition thereto directed a verdict for the defendant. This was a manifestly erroneous disposition of the case. We think the evidence required the submission of the case to the jury, but even assuming that the justice was right in believing that the motion to dismiss should be granted, it was improper to direct a verdict for the defendant. It was also improper to render a judgment such as the record discloses. In the Municipal Court, where a plaintiff does not prove his cause of action, the judgment should simply provide that the action is dismissed, with costs, without prejudice to a new action. § 1382, Consol. Act.

Present: Beekmae, P. J., Giegebich and O’Gobmae, JJ.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Misc. 780, 65 N.Y.S. 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kieffer-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack