History
  • No items yet
midpage
Goldstein v. Silverstein
3 Misc. 552
| City of New York Municipal Cou... | 1893
|
Check Treatment
Fitzsimons, J.

The appellant’s main contention is that the verdict is against the weight of evidence and contrary to the law.

A verdict should not be disturbed unless it shows passion, prejudice, mistake, • corruption, or shocks the judgment of man, or is without evidence or" so decidedly against the evidence as to show partiality or gross ignorance.

"We have carefully examined the evidence in this case for the purpose of determining whether or not the rule of law above stated applies herein against plaintiff.

We find that the evidence fully justifies the verdict. It also appears that the note in question was purchased in good faith and for full value, and certainly no charge of fraud or corruption applies to its transfer.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Ehrlioh, Oh. J., and Newburger, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Goldstein v. Silverstein
Court Name: City of New York Municipal Court
Date Published: May 15, 1893
Citation: 3 Misc. 552
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.