Case ID: nys_125/html/0753-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. LAUGHLIN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROESSLE v. LANCASTER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    November 25, 1910.)
    Appeal and Error (§ 999*)—Verdict—Conclusiveness.
    Where the questions indicated on appeal were on the subsequent trial presented to the jury, as required by the decision, the verdict of the jury should control.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3912-3924; Dec. Dig. § 999.*]
    Laughlin, J., dissenting.
    Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
    Action by Elwood O. Roessle against Frederick J. Lancaster. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, LAUGH-LIN, MILLER, and DOWLING, JJ.
    Charles F. Brown, for appellant.
    John Ewen, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The questions in this case were substantially determined on the former appeal. 130 App. Div. 1, 114 N. Y. Supp. 387. No further discussion of the case is necessary; and, as the questions there indicated were presented to the jury, their verdict should control. The judgment and order are therefore affirmed, with costs.

LAUGHLIN, J.

I dissent, on the ground that the court ,erred in charging the plaintiff’s fifth request.