Peterson v. Grover

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peterson v. Grover

69 N.Y.S. 57

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 12, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 69 N.Y.S. 57 (Peterson v. Grover) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peterson v. Grover, 69 N.Y.S. 57 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

ADAMS, P. J.

This case, so far as we can discover, presents nothing for this court to review.' The appellants Grover have filed no exceptions to the conclusions of the trial court, and consequently as to them we are limited to a consideration of the exceptions taken during the trial. Elliott v. Van Schaick, 26 App. Div. 587, 50 N. Y. Supp. 432; Ainley v. Railway Co., 47 Hun, 206. The record discloses but a single exception available to these appellants, and this was to the admission of evidence which could not, by any possibility, have proved prejudicial to their rights. So far as the defendant Winslow is concerned, he does not appear to have appealed from the judgment at all. We are of opinion, therefore, that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

ADAMS, P. J.

This case, so far as we can discover, presents nothing for this court to review.' The appellants Grover have filed no exceptions to the conclusions of the trial court, and consequently as to them we are limited to a consideration of the exceptions taken during the trial. Elliott v. Van Schaick, 26 App. Div. 587, 50 N. Y. Supp. 432; Ainley v. Railway Co., 47 Hun, 206. The record discloses but a single exception available to these appellants, and this was to the admission of evidence which could not, by any possibility, have proved prejudicial to their rights. So far as the defendant Winslow is concerned, he does not appear to have appealed from the judgment at all. We are of opinion, therefore, that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 N.Y.S. 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-grover-nyappdiv-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack