Case ID: nys_85/html/1136-02.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

LIGHTOWLER, Respondent, v. DOIG, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    January 7, 1904.)
    Action by Oliver Lightowler against Emma Doig, personally and as executrix, etc. From a judgment of the City Court for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Sproull, Harmer & Sproull, for appellant. H. B. Phil-brook, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Except to the refusal of the court to disnyss the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case, and at the close of the whole case, not a single exception was taken at the trial before rendition of the verdict. Upon the evidence the case was one for the jury, and it was submitted to the jury under a charge by the court to which no objection was made. The record discloses no reason for disturbing the verdict, which the jury found in favor of the plaintiff. The judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs.