Shimm v. Carpenter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shimm v. Carpenter

230 A.D. 743

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

DecidedJune 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 230 A.D. 743 (Shimm v. Carpenter) 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

Shimm v. Carpenter, 230 A.D. 743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Order setting aside verdict and granting a new trial, and order of September 28, 1928, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The grounds upon which the order was based, as stated in the opinions of the learned trial justice, amply upheld the order. We are also of opinion that the finding that the plaintiffs were unaware of the fact that the defendants were acting as agents and not as principals, is against the weight of the credible evidence. We are of the further opinion that the motion to set aside the verdict was made “ at the same term ” in which the case was tried and the verdict rendered, and that the oral denial of the motion did not preclude the court from thereupon entertaining the motion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ.

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

Order setting aside verdict and granting a new trial, and order of September 28, 1928, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The grounds upon which the order was based, as stated in the opinions of the learned trial justice, amply upheld the order. We are also of opinion that the finding that the plaintiffs were unaware of the fact that the defendants were acting as agents and not as principals, is against the weight of the credible evidence. We are of the further opinion that the motion to set aside the verdict was made “ at the same term ” in which the case was tried and the verdict rendered, and that the oral denial of the motion did not preclude the court from thereupon entertaining the motion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.D. 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shimm-v-carpenter-nyappdiv-1930.