Weed v. . the N.Y. Harlem R.R. Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Weed v. . the N.Y. Harlem R.R. Co.

29 N.Y. 616

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 5, 1864

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 29 N.Y. 616 (Weed v. . the N.Y. Harlem R.R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Weed v. . the N.Y. Harlem R.R. Co., 29 N.Y. 616 (N.Y. 1864).

Pincite

Opinion

The appeal in this case brings up nothing whatever for review. There are no exceptions contained *Page 618 in the case, as settled, nor any allusion to any, as having been taken at any time. There is nothing, therefore, to review, as has been repeatedly held by this court. (Hunt v. Bloomer, 3 Kern. 341; Magie v. Baker, 4 id. 435.) The printed paper, purporting to be exceptions taken at some time, does not appear by anything which can be gathered from any statement in the printed book, or from its connection with other papers, to have been a part even of the judgment roll. For aught that appears, it was a mere loose paper, filed in the case. But if it was a part of the judgment roll, it could not avail the defendant, as it is not referred to in the case, and is not brought up by the appeal as any part of such case. In addition to all this, if the exceptions which appear, were in the case, they would present no question which this court could review, according to the settled practice. No exception is taken to the decision upon the law. They relate exclusively to the finding upon matters of fact, which would not be reviewable here. (Davis v. Spencer, 24 N YR. p. 390; Hoyt v. Thompson's Executor, 19 id. 212.) The judgment should therefore be affirmed.

All the judges concurring, judgment affirmed. *Page 619

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

The appeal in this case brings up nothing whatever for review. There are no exceptions contained *Page 618 in the case, as settled, nor any allusion to any, as having been taken at any time. There is nothing, therefore, to review, as has been repeatedly held by this court. (Hunt v. Bloomer, 3 Kern. 341; Magie v. Baker, 4 id. 435.) The printed paper, purporting to be exceptions taken at some time, does not appear by anything which can be gathered from any statement in the printed book, or from its connection with other papers, to have been a part even of the judgment roll. For aught that appears, it was a mere loose paper, filed in the case. But if it was a part of the judgment roll, it could not avail the defendant, as it is not referred to in the case, and is not brought up by the appeal as any part of such case. In addition to all this, if the exceptions which appear, were in the case, they would present no question which this court could review, according to the settled practice. No exception is taken to the decision upon the law. They relate exclusively to the finding upon matters of fact, which would not be reviewable here. (Davis v. Spencer, 24 N YR. p. 390; Hoyt v. Thompson's Executor, 19 id. 212.) The judgment should therefore be affirmed.

All the judges concurring, judgment affirmed. *Page 619

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.Y. 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weed-v-the-ny-harlem-rr-co-ny-1864.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack