Skinner v. Hamilton
This text of 175 A.D. 884 (Skinner v. Hamilton) 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.
Opinion
The order appealed from was clearly unauthorized. If the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for defendant instead of dismissing the complaint (a question which we do not decide and cannot decide upon the record before us) the defendant’s remedy was by appeal and not by a motion before another justice, sitting in Special Term, to vacate the judgment and order a new trial. The granting of such a motion was error. The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Dowling and Smith, JJ., concurred. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
175 A.D. 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skinner-v-hamilton-nyappdiv-1916.