Roth v. Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Roth v. Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery Railroad

56 N.Y. St. Rep. 894

New York Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1893·Published

Opinion

Freedman, J.

There was no error in the refusal of the trial judge to dismiss the complaint, or to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. Upon all the facts disclosed, the case was clearly one for the jury, and, upon due examination, We cannot say that the verdict which was rendered in favor of the plaintiff is contrary to the evidence or against the weight of the evidence, or excessive in amount. The defendant’s exceptions are clearly untenable. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Freedman, J.

There was no error in the refusal of the trial judge to dismiss the complaint, or to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. Upon all the facts disclosed, the case was clearly one for the jury, and, upon due examination, We cannot say that the verdict which was rendered in favor of the plaintiff is contrary to the evidence or against the weight of the evidence, or excessive in amount. The defendant’s exceptions are clearly untenable. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Roth v. Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery Railroad, 56 N.Y. St. Rep. 894 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

56 N.Y. St. Rep. 894 (Roth v. Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.