Legal Opinion

Wierichs v. Innis

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1900PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Motxoh by defendant and appellant to resettle case.

1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, J.

The case was not submitted to the jury. There was a mandatory direction to find for the plaintiff. The exception to this direction is sufficient to present the objection on appeal that there were questions of fact for the jury. Trustees v. Kirk, 68 N. Y. 459; First Nat. Bank v. Dana, 79 id. 108, 110'; Stone v. Flower, 47 id. 566; Vail v. Reynolds, 118 id. 301. In addition thereto, the defendant asked leave to go to the jury on the facts. *463This was denied and a further exception taken. This surely enables the defendant to review the propriety of these two rulings. In the proposed case served…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Trustees of East Hampton v. . KirkNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
  2. McManus v. Western Assurance Co. of TorontoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
  3. Donai v. LutjensNew York Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Zucker v. BlumenthalNew York Supreme Court · 1899

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Dyer v. J. Y. J. Corp.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1917

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API