Case ID: misc_62/html/0461-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary Etta Murphy, Appellant, v. Adrian H. Joline and Douglas Robinson, as Receivers, Etc., Respondents.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    March, 1909.)
    Municipal Courts — Procedure — New trial — Necessity of fixing time for new trial.
    An order setting aside a verdict in the Municipal Court of the city of New York as contrary to the weight of evidence and to the law, which does not provide, as required by section 254 of the Municipal Court Act, that the case be set for trial at a time specified, is unauthorized.
    Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, sixth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the defendants.
    W. L. Cannon, for appellant.
    Anthony J. Ernest, for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The learned trial justice, having had before him all the witnesses, was of opinion and decided, after opportunity for full consideration of the evidence and the law, that the verdict for the plaintiff was contrary to the weight of evidence and to the law, announcing his decision October 13, 1908. Thereon he signed, December 19, 1908, an order presented by the defendants from which, however, was omitted setting down the case for trial at a time specified, as required by section 254 of the Municipal Court Act, and so was unauthorized. 25 Misc. Rep. 338; 32 id. 694. This is the order appealed from. It must be reversed.

Present: Gildersleeve, MacLean and Dayton, JJ.

Order reversed, with costs.