Case ID: nys_26/html/1134-02.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

ROTH, Respondent, v. DRY DOCK, E. B. & B. R. CO., Appellant.
    (Superior Court of New York City, General Term.
    December 29, 1893.)
    Action by David Roth against the Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery :Railroad Company.
    
    Argued before FREEDMAN and GILDERSLEEVE, JJ.
    J. M. Scribner, for appellant.
    M. J. Katz, for respondent.
   FREEDMAN, J.

There was no error In the refusal of the trial Judge to dismiss the complaint, or to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. Upon all the facts disclosed, the case was clearly one for the jury, and, upon due examination, we cannot say that the verdict which was rendered in favor of the plaintiff is contrary to the evidence, or against the weight of the evidence, or excessive in amount. The defendant’s exceptions are clearly untenable. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.