Case ID: nys_33/html/0271-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "EHRLICH, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHAIMSON v. HENSHING.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    April 9, 1895.)
    Appeal—Review—Questions oe Fact.
    Only questions of law are presented for review where, though a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence was made and denied, no order was entered on denial.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Rosa Chaimson against Henry Henshing for personal injuries. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    ' Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and VAN WYCK and MCCARTHY, JJ.
    Thomas B. Osbron and H. C. Botty, for appellant.
    Robert Goeller, for respondent.
   EHRLICH, C. J.

The action is to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the negligence of the defendant. The proofs were sufficient to require the trial judge to submit the questions of negligence and contributory negligence to the jury. He did so submit them as favorably to the defendant as the facts warranted, and the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $150. On the coming in of the verdict, defendant’s counsel moved for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence; but no order was entered on the denial of the motion. So that we are called upon to review only the questions of law presented by the record. Peil v. Reinhart, 127 N. Y. 381, 385, 27 N. E. 1077; Wright v. Hunter, 46 N. Y. 409.

We find no error .of law, and it follows that the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. All concur. r