Meyers v. Cohn

City of New York Municipal Court

Meyers v. Cohn

3 Misc. 145, 22 N.Y.S. 711

DecidedMarch 15, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Misc. 145 (Meyers v. Cohn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meyers v. Cohn, 3 Misc. 145, 22 N.Y.S. 711 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

.Ehrlich, Ch. J.

We have repeatedly enforced the rule that where no order is entered denying the motion for a new trial on the judge’s minutes, the appeal brings up for review only such errors as were committed at the trial. McArdle v. Smith, 1 Misc. Rep. 4, cases cited.

No order was entered in this instance, and the rule must be applied.

The action was for brokerage in selling certain real estate belonging to the defendant. The case went to the jury on. conflicting evidence, and they found for the plaintiff. No-error appears to have been committed during the trial to the [146]*146prejudice of the defendant, and as the facts are not before us for review, we must affirm the judgment, with costs.

McGown and Fitzsimons, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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