Patterson v. McIlroy

The Superior Court of New York City

Patterson v. McIlroy

28 Jones & S. 130, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 960, 60 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 130

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJanuary 11, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Jones & S. 130 (Patterson v. McIlroy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Patterson v. McIlroy, 28 Jones & S. 130, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 960, 60 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 130 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.—Freedman, P. J.

The appeal being the judgment only, the questions of fact are not open for review. The action was brought to recover damages for an assault alleged to have been committed by the defendant upon the plaintiff. The issues were submitted to a jury and determined by them in favor of the defendant. The errors complained of relate to the charge of the trial judge and his refusals to charge otherwise. Upon an examination of the evidence bearing upon this branch of the case, none of the exceptions appears to be tenable. In view of the testimony given by the defendant, plaintiff’s requests for unqualified instructions to the effect that, as matter of law, the defendant had no right to return to plaintiff’s private office after he had been ordered to leave it, and had started to do so, and that the plaintiff had a right to use the necessary force to eject the defendant, were too broad.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

McAdam, J., concurred.

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

By the Court.—Freedman, P. J.

The appeal being the judgment only, the questions of fact are not open for review. The action was brought to recover damages for an assault alleged to have been committed by the defendant upon the plaintiff. The issues were submitted to a jury and determined by them in favor of the defendant. The errors complained of relate to the charge of the trial judge and his refusals to charge otherwise. Upon an examination of the evidence bearing upon this branch of the case, none of the exceptions appears to be tenable. In view of the testimony given by the defendant, plaintiff’s requests for unqualified instructions to the effect that, as matter of law, the defendant had no right to return to plaintiff’s private office after he had been ordered to leave it, and had started to do so, and that the plaintiff had a right to use the necessary force to eject the defendant, were too broad.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

McAdam, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Jones & S. 130, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 960, 60 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-mcilroy-nysuperctnyc-1892.