Sullivan v. New York City Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Sullivan v. New York City Railway Co.

94 N.Y.S. 370

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 94 N.Y.S. 370 (Sullivan v. New York City Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sullivan v. New York City Railway Co., 94 N.Y.S. 370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It may not well be said herein that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of evidence, nor that the verdict was not legal in form because rendered for “the full amount claimed,” instead of for “a specific sum,” as required by section 239 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1560, c. 580); for the jury were informed by the trial justice in his charge of the specific amount claimed, and so their verdict may be said to have been sufficiently rendered for a specific sum. The verdict, however, is excessive, and should be reduced to" $250.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, unless the plaintiff stipulates that the judgment in the court below be reduced to $250, in which case the judgment, as modified, is affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.

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

PER CURIAM.

It may not well be said herein that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of evidence, nor that the verdict was not legal in form because rendered for “the full amount claimed,” instead of for “a specific sum,” as required by section 239 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1560, c. 580); for the jury were informed by the trial justice in his charge of the specific amount claimed, and so their verdict may be said to have been sufficiently rendered for a specific sum. The verdict, however, is excessive, and should be reduced to" $250.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, unless the plaintiff stipulates that the judgment in the court below be reduced to $250, in which case the judgment, as modified, is affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 N.Y.S. 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-new-york-city-railway-co-nyappterm-1905.