Luechinger v. . Eichhammer

New York Court of Appeals

Luechinger v. . Eichhammer

142 N.E. 282, 236 N.Y. 556, 1923 N.Y. LEXIS 983

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 29, 1923

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 N.E. 282 (Luechinger v. . Eichhammer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Luechinger v. . Eichhammer, 142 N.E. 282, 236 N.Y. 556, 1923 N.Y. LEXIS 983 (N.Y. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries. Defendants appeared separately. At Trial Term plaintiff recovered a verdict against both defendants. The defendant Reuther did not appeal therefrom. Defendant Eichhammer appealed to the Appellate Division, and that court reversed the judgment of the trial court as matter of law and dis *557 missed tlie complaint. Upon the trial at the close of the evidence counsel for both defendants omitted to move for a dismissal of the complaint or a direction of a verdict, thereby conceding that there was evidence which justified a submission of the case to the jury. The Appellate Division was, therefore, powerless to reverse the judgment upon the law and hold as matter of law that there was no evidence in the case to establish plaintiff’s cause of action. (Murtha v. Ridley, 232 N. Y. 488; Caldwell v. Nicolson, 235 N. Y. 209; Eno v. Klein, 236 N. Y. 543.) The record is barren of any meritorious exceptions taken to the admission of evidence on the trial.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of the Trial Term affirmed, with costs to appellant in this court and the Appellate Division.

Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

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 personal injuries. Defendants appeared separately. At Trial Term plaintiff recovered a verdict against both defendants. The defendant Reuther did not appeal therefrom. Defendant Eichhammer appealed to the Appellate Division, and that court reversed the judgment of the trial court as matter of law and dis *557 missed tlie complaint. Upon the trial at the close of the evidence counsel for both defendants omitted to move for a dismissal of the complaint or a direction of a verdict, thereby conceding that there was evidence which justified a submission of the case to the jury. The Appellate Division was, therefore, powerless to reverse the judgment upon the law and hold as matter of law that there was no evidence in the case to establish plaintiff’s cause of action. (Murtha v. Ridley, 232 N. Y. 488; Caldwell v. Nicolson, 235 N. Y. 209; Eno v. Klein, 236 N. Y. 543.) The record is barren of any meritorious exceptions taken to the admission of evidence on the trial.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of the Trial Term affirmed, with costs to appellant in this court and the Appellate Division.

Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 N.E. 282, 236 N.Y. 556, 1923 N.Y. LEXIS 983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luechinger-v-eichhammer-ny-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack