Case ID: nys_92/html/0001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CINBERG v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    February 16, 1905.)
    1. Appeal—Question for Review.
    Where a street railroad admitted on the record that it operated and controlled the two car lines in question, and did not suggest any failure of proof as to the contract between the two companies, the objection could not be taken for the first time on appeal.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Thirteenth District.
    Action by Lottie Cinberg against the Interurban Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before SCOTT, MacLEAN, and DAVIS, JJ.
    H. A. Robinson, for appellant.
    Samuel Rosenbloom, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The defendant admitted on the record that it operated and controlled both lines of cars. The defendant made no motion for judgment on any ground, and did not suggest any failure of proof as to the contract between the two companies. If it had objected on that score, we may assume that the defect would have been supplied. The objection cannot be taken for the first time on appeal.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.