Sopher v. Sargent

New York City Court

Sopher v. Sargent

14 N.Y.S. 268, 38 N.Y. St. Rep. 481, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1936

DecidedApril 27, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 14 N.Y.S. 268 (Sopher v. Sargent) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sopher v. Sargent, 14 N.Y.S. 268, 38 N.Y. St. Rep. 481, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1936 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Wyck, J.

After the trial judge had charged the jury, the defendant’s counsel stated to the court that he wished to except to the charge wherein the court had stated the only questions for the jury to determine were whether or not the husband of defendant was authorized to sign the contract for her, and the value of the services. When the court asked the counsel what other question there was, he answered he did not think there was any question for'the jury, and made no request of the court to submit any other question to the jury. Upon such an exception no error can be predicated. The testimony was sufficient to carry the case to the jury, and therefore the motion for a nonsuit was properly denied. We discern nothing in the testimony which calls upon us to disturb the verdict as against the weight of evidence. Judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs.

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

Van Wyck, J.

After the trial judge had charged the jury, the defendant’s counsel stated to the court that he wished to except to the charge wherein the court had stated the only questions for the jury to determine were whether or not the husband of defendant was authorized to sign the contract for her, and the value of the services. When the court asked the counsel what other question there was, he answered he did not think there was any question for'the jury, and made no request of the court to submit any other question to the jury. Upon such an exception no error can be predicated. The testimony was sufficient to carry the case to the jury, and therefore the motion for a nonsuit was properly denied. We discern nothing in the testimony which calls upon us to disturb the verdict as against the weight of evidence. Judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.Y.S. 268, 38 N.Y. St. Rep. 481, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sopher-v-sargent-nycityct-1891.