Rothfuss v. H. J. Koehler Sporting Goods Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rothfuss v. H. J. Koehler Sporting Goods Co.

129 N.Y.S. 28

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 4, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 129 N.Y.S. 28 (Rothfuss v. H. J. Koehler Sporting Goods Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rothfuss v. H. J. Koehler Sporting Goods Co., 129 N.Y.S. 28 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

GERARD, J.

At the close of plaintiff’s case, and before any evidence had been offered on behalf of defendant, and before the defendant rested, on motion of defendant’s counsel, the court directed the jury to find a verdict in favor of defendant. When the proof adduced by plaintiff is insufficient to make out a cause of action, and no proof is offered by defendant, it is error to direct a verdict for defendant, because a dismissal of the complaint merely puts the plaintiff out of court, and enables him to sue over, on payment of the costs of the first suit; but the direction of a verdict is a bar to plaintiff’s-right of action. Rosenkranz v. Saberski, 40 Misc. Rep. 650, 83 N. Y. Supp. 257; Rothenberg v. Rosenberg, 57 Misc. Rep. 653, 108 N. Y-Supp. 678.

In this view of the record, it becomes unnecessary for us to consider the other questions raised on appeal.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

GERARD, J.

At the close of plaintiff’s case, and before any evidence had been offered on behalf of defendant, and before the defendant rested, on motion of defendant’s counsel, the court directed the jury to find a verdict in favor of defendant. When the proof adduced by plaintiff is insufficient to make out a cause of action, and no proof is offered by defendant, it is error to direct a verdict for defendant, because a dismissal of the complaint merely puts the plaintiff out of court, and enables him to sue over, on payment of the costs of the first suit; but the direction of a verdict is a bar to plaintiff’s-right of action. Rosenkranz v. Saberski, 40 Misc. Rep. 650, 83 N. Y. Supp. 257; Rothenberg v. Rosenberg, 57 Misc. Rep. 653, 108 N. Y-Supp. 678.

In this view of the record, it becomes unnecessary for us to consider the other questions raised on appeal.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 N.Y.S. 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rothfuss-v-h-j-koehler-sporting-goods-co-nyappterm-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack