Pryor v. Chadwick

New York Supreme Court

Pryor v. Chadwick

33 N.Y.S. 1133, 93 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 75, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 874

DecidedApril 12, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 33 N.Y.S. 1133 (Pryor v. Chadwick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pryor v. Chadwick, 33 N.Y.S. 1133, 93 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 75, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 874 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

WARD, J.

Appeal from a judgment obtained upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for personal injuries and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The verdict for the respondent was $1,500 for injuries caused by the plaintiff’s assault, producing a miscarriage, and serious personal injury and suffering. There was no exception taken in the course of the trial, nor any to the judge’s charge, or any requests to charge. The appellant now complains of certain portions of the charge, and that the verdict is excessive. Neither contention is sustained. There was proof justifying the jury in finding the verdict, and it cannot be interfered with here. The judge’s charge was unobjectionable. The judgment and order denying a new trial should be affirmed, with costs. —

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

WARD, J.

Appeal from a judgment obtained upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for personal injuries and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The verdict for the respondent was $1,500 for injuries caused by the plaintiff’s assault, producing a miscarriage, and serious personal injury and suffering. There was no exception taken in the course of the trial, nor any to the judge’s charge, or any requests to charge. The appellant now complains of certain portions of the charge, and that the verdict is excessive. Neither contention is sustained. There was proof justifying the jury in finding the verdict, and it cannot be interfered with here. The judge’s charge was unobjectionable. The judgment and order denying a new trial should be affirmed, with costs. —

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 N.Y.S. 1133, 93 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 75, 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pryor-v-chadwick-nysupct-1895.