Case ID: nys_57/html/0396-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HASCALL, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HENLY v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    March 28, 1899.)
    Contracts—Construction—Province op Court.
    The construction of a contract, whose terms are undisputed and unambiguous, i"s solely for the court.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by one Henly. against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and MCCARTHY and HAS-CALL, JJ.
    H. Odell, for appellant.
    A. Furber, for respondent.
   HASCALL, J.

This appeal brings up two principal questions for review, viz.: Whether the verdict is against the weight of evidence, and whether error was committed at the trial in refusing to dismiss the complaint. We find, upon a careful reading of the case, that the defendant has good grounds for feeling aggrieved, and for appeal to this court. It was for the trial court alone to construe the contract between the parties, and to instruct the jury as to its meaning. Dwight v. Insurance Co., 103 N. Y. 341, 8 N. E. 654. The terms being undisputed and unambiguous, the question thereon was solely one of law (Kenyon v. Association, 122 N. Y. 247, 25 N. E.. 299; Moxley v. Railroad Co., 143 N. Y. 649, 37 N. E. 824), and should not have been left to the jury. It was error, upon the uncontradicted evidence, not to find that the acts done by persons, complained of by plaintiff, were not committed by the defendant or its servants (King v. Railroad Co., 66 N. Y. 181), and so to instruct the jury, or to dismiss the complaint.

For these reasons, the judgment and order appealed from must be reversed, the verdict set aside, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant. All concur.