Briant v. . Trimmer
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment entered by direction of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the seventh judicial district, upon a verdict in favor of plaintiff. But a single question is presented by the case, which is set forth in the opinion. This court is not deprived of jurisdiction to review upon the evidence questions of fact, excepting in regard to cases tried by a referee or judge.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment entered by direction of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the seventh judicial district, upon a verdict in favor of plaintiff. But a single question is presented by the case, which is set forth in the opinion. This court is not deprived of jurisdiction to review upon the evidence questions of fact, excepting in regard to cases tried by a referee or judge. (Griscom v. The Mayor of N. Y., 12th N. Y., 586; Hoyt v. Thompson, 19th N. Y., 212; Henry v. Wilkes, 37th N. Y., 562; see also chap. 4, title 8 of the Code of Procedure, “ Trial by the Court,” § 268.) Evidence as…
1Opinion of the Court
Church, Ch. J.
This is an action for injuries sustained by the plaintiff, in consequence of a collision on the public highway, occasioned by the alleged negligence of the defendant..
The question of negligence has been settled by the jury, and we have no power to review the facts. ISTor is the decision upon the motion for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence reviewable in this court, because it is discretionary with the court below.
The only exception in the case is upon the decision of the court overruling an objection to the following question to Dr. Rowland: “ Can you state…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Lewis v. HojerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1891
- Hughes v. HughesNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1894
- St. John v. PotterNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892
- Clark v. SmithNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1894
- Prior v. FlaglerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.