History
  • No items yet
midpage
Carroll v. O'Shea
21 N.Y.S. 956
New York Court of Common Pleas
1893
Check Treatment
BISCHOFF, J.

Neither of defendant’s exceptions to the admission of evidence is available on appeal, because the ground of the objection is not stated. Cruikshank v. Gordon, 118 N. Y. 178, 23 N. E. Rep. 457.

Any defect in the proof when plaintiff rested could be and was cured by evidence adduced by either party after denial of defendant’s motion for dismissal of the complaint, (Plank Road Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102, 112; Tiffany v. St. John, 65 N. Y. 315, 317; Painton v. Railroad Co., 83 N. Y. 7;) and defendant’s failure to renew the motion, or to ask that a verdict be directed in his favor, conceded the-sufficiency of the *957evidence for submission to the jury, (Barrett v. Railroad Co., 45 N. Y. 629; Schwinger v. Raymond, 105 N. Y. 648, 11 N. E. Rep. 952.)

The case contains no order denying defendant’s motion on the minutes for a new trial, and an exception only to the denial of such a motion is ineffectual for any purpose. Matthews v. Meyberg, 63 N. Y. 656; Boos v. Insurance Co., 64 N. Y. 236. Besides, no appeal lies to this court from an order of the city court refusing a new trial. Code Civil Proc. § 3191; Wilmore v. Flack, 96 N. Y. 512; Smith v. Pryor, (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 9 N. Y. Supp. 636. The judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Carroll v. O'Shea
Court Name: New York Court of Common Pleas
Date Published: Feb 6, 1893
Citation: 21 N.Y.S. 956
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.