Schulz v. Rohe

28 N.Y.S. 1147
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Schulz v. Rohe. Read the opinion of the Court — 24 N.Y.S. 118

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Under the decision of the general term of this court upon, the former appeal (4 Misc. Rep. 384, 24 N. Y. Supp. 118), and the evidence given by both parties upon the trial now under review, the case was one fertile jury. It was properly submitted, and, upon the whole case, it cannot be held that the verdict is contrary to evidence, or to the weight of the evidence. No reason appears sufficient to call for a disturbance of the verdict. There were no errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence. 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

Schulz v. Rohe, 28 N.Y.S. 1147 (superctny 1894).

28 N.Y.S. 1147 (Schulz v. Rohe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schulz v. Rohe
24 N.Y.S. 118 (Superior Court of New York, 1893)