Meyer v. Riordan
64 N.Y.S. 382
Opinion
If the appellant was dissatisfied with the statement made by the trial justice to the jury, he should have requested him to charge that there was no evidence pro or con upon the facts concerning which the jury wished to be instructed. Appellant’s mere exception to the instruction given we think was not sufficient. Quill v. Railroad Co. (Com. P1.) 11 N. Y. Supp. 80; Mallory v. Railroad Co., 3 Abb. Dec. 139.
Judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Meyer v. Riordan, 64 N.Y.S. 382 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1900).
64 N.Y.S. 382 (Meyer v. Riordan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Quill v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
11 N.Y.S. 80 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1890)