Roehm v. W. T. Grant Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roehm v. W. T. Grant Co.

222 A.D. 851

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D. 851 (Roehm v. W. T. Grant Co.) 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

Roehm v. W. T. Grant Co., 222 A.D. 851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The learned trial court was justified in the exercise of discretion in setting aside the verdict. The statement, however, in its opinion that “ defendant’s motion for a non-suit should have been granted ” cannot be approved. We are of opinion that the evidence presents questions of fact which were properly submitted to the jury for determination. It was a question of fact as to whether Gilhula, the assistant manager, acted within the scope of his authority; whether he approved, encouraged, and co-operated in the acts of Rosner, and whether the plaintiff was unlawfully restrained and deprived of her liberty. (Stevens v. O' Neill, 51 App. Div. 364; affd., 169 N. Y. 375; Dowler v. Johnson, 225 id. 39; Grant v. Knepper, 245 id. 158.) Upon the motion to set aside the verdict briefs were not filed and the authorities above cited were not called to the attention of the trial court. All concur. Present —■ Hubbs, P. J., Clark, Sears, Crouch and Sawyer, JJ. Order affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The learned trial court was justified in the exercise of discretion in setting aside the verdict. The statement, however, in its opinion that “ defendant’s motion for a non-suit should have been granted ” cannot be approved. We are of opinion that the evidence presents questions of fact which were properly submitted to the jury for determination. It was a question of fact as to whether Gilhula, the assistant manager, acted within the scope of his authority; whether he approved, encouraged, and co-operated in the acts of Rosner, and whether the plaintiff was unlawfully restrained and deprived of her liberty. (Stevens v. O' Neill, 51 App. Div. 364; affd., 169 N. Y. 375; Dowler v. Johnson, 225 id. 39; Grant v. Knepper, 245 id. 158.) Upon the motion to set aside the verdict briefs were not filed and the authorities above cited were not called to the attention of the trial court. All concur. Present —■ Hubbs, P. J., Clark, Sears, Crouch and Sawyer, JJ. Order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D. 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roehm-v-w-t-grant-co-nyappdiv-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack