Smith v. Moulson

34 N.Y.S. 607, 88 Hun 147, 95 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 147, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 530
New York Supreme Court·Decided June 21, 1895·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

WARD, J.

The principal objection raised to the judgment by the appellant is that the court found that a contract for the purchase of the land between the parties had not been made, and there was no evidence to support that finding. Where there is a finding of fact without evidence, an exception is necessary to bring the case up for review, as it is a question of law. Mead v. Smith, 28 Hun, 639; Underhill v. Nichols, 8 Wkly. Dig. 276; Healy v. Clark, 120 N. Y. 642, 24 N. E. 316. There was no exception to the ruling of the trial court, filed as required by section 994 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At all events, there should have been exceptions to the conclusion of law that the complaint be dismissed.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Smith v. Moulson, 34 N.Y.S. 607, 88 Hun 147, 95 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 147, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 530 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

34 N.Y.S. 607 (Smith v. Moulson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Price v. Levy
26 A.D. 620 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Foulke v. Thalmessinger
73 N.Y. St. Rep. 194 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)