Pollock v. . Pennsylvania Iron Works Company
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal by permission from a judgment of the General Term of the late Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New York, entered June 10, 1895, affirming a judgment of the General Term of the City Court of New York, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Cumam.
The legal effect of the omission of the defendant at the close of the testimony to move either for a dismissal of the complaint or the direction of a verdict in its favor was to consent to the submission of the case to the jury. We are, therefore, prevented from considering whether the defendant was entitled to judgment. None of the exceptions to the charge call for a reversal.
The judgment should be affirmed.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by13 opinions
- Hopkins v. . ClarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Wangner v. . GrimmNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Ives v. . EllisNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Meyer v. Suburban Home Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1899
- Raw Silk Trading Co. v. KatzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.