Mechonznik v. Weintraub

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Mechonznik v. Weintraub

113 N.Y.S. 174

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 30, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 113 N.Y.S. 174 (Mechonznik v. Weintraub) 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

Mechonznik v. Weintraub, 113 N.Y.S. 174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

This was an action, to recover for money loaned. The plaintiff offered testimony in support of his cause of action. The defendants offered testimony contradicting it. The trial court dismissed the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff had not sustained the burden of proof. In so doing, the court assumed to exercise the functions of the jury. There being a conflict in the testimony, it was. the province of the jury to decide the case, and it was clearly error for the trial court to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff had not proved his case by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

This was an action, to recover for money loaned. The plaintiff offered testimony in support of his cause of action. The defendants offered testimony contradicting it. The trial court dismissed the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff had not sustained the burden of proof. In so doing, the court assumed to exercise the functions of the jury. There being a conflict in the testimony, it was. the province of the jury to decide the case, and it was clearly error for the trial court to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff had not proved his case by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.Y.S. 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mechonznik-v-weintraub-nyappterm-1908.