Schulz v. Rohe

Superior Court of New York

Schulz v. Rohe

28 N.Y.S. 1147

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedMay 7, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 28 N.Y.S. 1147 (Schulz v. Rohe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.Y.S. 1147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schulz-v-rohe-superctny-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack