Case ID: ny-st-rep_36/html/0077-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Freedman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles A. Seddon et al., App’lts, v. Robert Donald, Resp’t.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed January 5, 1891.)
    
    Appeal—When questions op pact not be viewable.
    Where the appellant did not move for the direction of a verdict, or except to any portion of the charge, hut moved generally for a new trial without stating any grounds therefor, and the case does not state that it contains all the evidence, no questions of fact can he reviewed on the appeal.
    Appeal from a judgment entered Upon a verdict rendered in favor of defendant, and also from an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial.
    The action is brought by plaintiffs to recover the sum of $2,155.26, alleged to be due upon a contract of employment, by which they claim the defendant employed them as public fire insurance adjusters, and agreed to pay them five per cent, commissions upon the amount of loss received from the insurance companies.
    
      Stalllcnecht & Handel, for app’lts; James M. Hunt, for resp’t
   Freedman, J.

The plaintiffs, at the close of the case, made no motion for the direction of a verdict in their favor. The issues were submitted to the jury under a charge to which no exception was taken. The jury having found for the defendant, the plaintiffs moved generally for a new trial, but stated no ground for their motion. Moreover there is no certificate that the case contains all the evidence. Under these circumstances no question of fact can be reviewed.

The exceptions to the admission and exclusion of evidence have been examined, but none of them constitutes sufficient ground for reversal.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Sedgwick, Oh. J., concurs.