Pollock v. . Pennsylvania Iron Works Company
51 N.E. 979, 157 N.Y. 699, 1898 N.Y. LEXIS 655
Opinion
The legal effect of the omission of the defendant at the close of the testimony to move either for a dismissal of the complaint or the direction of a verdict in its favor was to consent to the submission of the case to the jury. We are, therefore, prevented from considering whether the defendant was entitled to judgment. None of the exceptions to the charge call for a reversal.
The judgment should be affirmed.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pollock v. . Pennsylvania Iron Works Company, 51 N.E. 979, 157 N.Y. 699, 1898 N.Y. LEXIS 655 (N.Y. 1898).
51 N.E. 979 (Pollock v. . Pennsylvania Iron Works Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Raw Silk Trading Co. v. Katz
201 A.D. 713 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1922)
McGrath v. Home Insurance
84 N.Y.S. 374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
Wangner v. . Grimm
62 N.E. 569 (New York Court of Appeals, 1902)
Ives v. . Ellis
62 N.E. 138 (New York Court of Appeals, 1901)
Streep v. McLoughlin
36 Misc. 769 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Brown v. Levy
34 Misc. 812 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1901)
Carpenter v. . Taylor
58 N.E. 53 (New York Court of Appeals, 1900)
Gowing v. Warner
29 Misc. 593 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1899)
Franken v. McAlpin
29 Misc. 771 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1899)
Hopkins v. . Clark
53 N.E. 27 (New York Court of Appeals, 1899)
Meyer v. Suburban Home Co.
25 Misc. 686 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)