Case ID: misc_45/html/0583-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Freedman, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Empire Trust Co., Appellant, v. James Devlin, Respondent.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    December, 1904.)
    Effect of failure of case to show that it contains all the evidence.
    Where a case on appeal contains no certificate or stipulation that it contains all the evidence the court will not inquire whether the verdict is contrary to the evidence, or against the weight of evidence. But, in such case, the court will review exceptions.
    Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the City Court of the city of Hew York, denying plaintiff’s motion made upon the minutes of the trial justice to set aside the verdict of the jury in favor of the defendant and for a new trial.
    Harrison, Seasongood & Edwards (Wm. H. Leonard Edwards, of counsel), for appellant.
    Bernard Zwinge (J. J. Karbry O’Kennedy, of counsel), for respondent.
   Freedman, P. J.

As the case on appeal does not, by way of a certificate or stipulation, affirmatively show that it contains all the evidence adduced at the trial, this court will not inquire whether the verdict is contrary to the evidence or against the weight of evidence. For the necessity of such a certificate or stipulation to enable the appellate court to weigh the facts, see Caven v. City of Troy, 15 App. Div. 163; Brooker v. Filkins, 9 Misc. Rep. 146; Jeffers v. Bantley, 47 Hun, 90; Revelski v. Droesch, 6 App. Div. 190; and a large number of other cases collected under rule 32 of the General Rules of Practice in the annotated edition of said rules. The case of Rosenstein v. Fox, 150 N. Y. 354, and other cases cited by the appellant do not hold the contrary. They are simply to the effect that in the absence of such a certificate or stipulation the right to a review of the exceptions still remains.

We have examined the exceptions appearing in the record and taken by the appellant and find that none of them presents reversible error. The plaintiff was not as matter of law entitled to the direction of a verdict in its favor. There was sufficient evidence to require the submission of the case to the jury and it was submitted to them under a charge to which no exception was taken.

The order should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Bischoff and Girdersleeve, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.