Murphy v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

88 N.Y.S. 187

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 5, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 187 (Murphy v. Interurban Street Railway Co.) 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

Murphy v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 88 N.Y.S. 187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

GREENBAUM, J.

That the order setting aside the verdict from was upon verdict was against the weight of evidence is manifest from the conditions therein imposed requiring defendant to pay costs of motion, and from the fact that the case on appeal shows that the motion was made upon the rendition of the verdict upon the grounds set forth in section 999 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proper practice requires that the order “shall specify the grounds upon which the motion is made and the ground or grounds upon which it was granted.” Rule 31 of the General Rules of Practice. A reading of the testimony convinces me that the discretion vested in the trial justice was not abused in setting aside the verdict upon the ground that it was contrary to the weight of evidence.

It is, however, well settled that when a verdict is thus set aside, it must be conditioned upon the payment of costs "of trial and disbursements. Helgers v. Staten Island Midland R. R. Co., 69 App. Div. 570, 75 N. Y. Supp. 34.

[188]*188The order will therefore be modified by requiring the defendant to pay costs of trial and disbursements to date, together with the costs of this appeal, and, in default of such payment, the order will be reversed and judgment directed upon the verdict, with costs and the costs of this appeal. All concur.

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

GREENBAUM, J.

That the order setting aside the verdict from was upon verdict was against the weight of evidence is manifest from the conditions therein imposed requiring defendant to pay costs of motion, and from the fact that the case on appeal shows that the motion was made upon the rendition of the verdict upon the grounds set forth in section 999 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proper practice requires that the order “shall specify the grounds upon which the motion is made and the ground or grounds upon which it was granted.” Rule 31 of the General Rules of Practice. A reading of the testimony convinces me that the discretion vested in the trial justice was not abused in setting aside the verdict upon the ground that it was contrary to the weight of evidence.

It is, however, well settled that when a verdict is thus set aside, it must be conditioned upon the payment of costs "of trial and disbursements. Helgers v. Staten Island Midland R. R. Co., 69 App. Div. 570, 75 N. Y. Supp. 34.

[188]*188The order will therefore be modified by requiring the defendant to pay costs of trial and disbursements to date, together with the costs of this appeal, and, in default of such payment, the order will be reversed and judgment directed upon the verdict, with costs and the costs of this appeal. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.Y.S. 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack