Case ID: ny-super-ct_58/html/0578-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THOMAS MORTIMER, Respondent v. JACOB DOELGER, et al., Appellants.
    
      Verdict not disturbed where there is conflict of testimony, when—The real question litigated at the trial was as to rate of the compensation plaintiff was to receive for his services; there was conflict of evidence on this issue; neither side asked for the direction -of a verdict on the ground of any alleged preponderance of evidence or any other ground; the casewentto the jury under a charge which carefully guarded the respective rights of the parties to which no exception was taken. Held that the verdict could not be disturbed.
    
    Before Freedman and Ingraham, JJ.
    
      Decided November 3, 1890.
    Appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial on the minutes.
    
      Michael C. Gross, for appellants.
    
      Hugh Coleman, for respondent.
   The Court, in affirming the judgment and order (Freedman, J., writing, Ingraham, J., concurring), held as stated in the head note, and cited Keeler v. Barretts, etc., Dyeing Establishment, 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. Rep. 369.