Marcus v. Joline

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Marcus v. Joline

119 N.Y.S. 172

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 12, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 119 N.Y.S. 172 (Marcus v. Joline) 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

Marcus v. Joline, 119 N.Y.S. 172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brought an action, based upon the alleged negligence of the defendant. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant offered no evidence, but made this motion: “I make the usual motion, if the court pleases.” Thereupon the court said: “Judgment for the defendant. The complaint is dismissed upon the [173]*173merits.” Upon this appeal, both sides concede that a dismissal upon the merits was error.

Judgment modified, by inserting a direction that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice to a new action, and, as modified, affirmed, with $10 costs to the appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brought an action, based upon the alleged negligence of the defendant. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant offered no evidence, but made this motion: “I make the usual motion, if the court pleases.” Thereupon the court said: “Judgment for the defendant. The complaint is dismissed upon the [173]*173merits.” Upon this appeal, both sides concede that a dismissal upon the merits was error.

Judgment modified, by inserting a direction that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice to a new action, and, as modified, affirmed, with $10 costs to the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 N.Y.S. 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcus-v-joline-nyappterm-1909.