Case ID: nys_71/html/1140-13.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PUR CURIAM. HASCALL; J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LOUGHRAN, Respondent, v. THIRD AVE. R. CO., Appellant.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    May, 1901.)
    Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Hoadly, Lauterbach & Johnson íEdgar M. Johnson, P. J. Rooney, Henry Siegrist. Jr., of counsel), for appellant. Kneeland, La Fetra & Glaze (Edward B. La Fetra, of counsel), for respondent.
   PUR CURIAM.

The judgment recovered herein is very reasonable in amount, and should be affirmed. We think the exceptions taken to the judge’s charge are not of sufficient importance to justify a reversal. We must assume that the jury only allowed plaintiff, in their verdict, for sums of money actually expended by him. He having failed to show that he paid a substitute while sick, of course the jury made him no allowance on that account. The judge’s charge upon that point simply instructed them to repay him for any sum so expended, if he spent any in that way. This was not error, and, we think, in no wise affected the verdict of the jury. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

O’DWYER, J., concurs.

HASCALL; J.

(dissenting).

It seems to me that the verdict has not sufficient support in the' evidence.