Case ID: ny-st-rep_73/html/0611-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’DWYER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fillmore Riker, Resp’t, v. James L. Curtis, App’lt.
    
      (New York City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed March 16, 1896.)
    
    Appeal—Conflicting evidence,
    A verdict, upon conflicting evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.
    Appeal from a "judgment on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
    E. A. S. Man, for app’lt; Edgar A Turrell, for resp’t."
   O’DWYER, J.

The action is brought to recover the amount of two alleged loans to the defendant, and the claim is resisted upon the ground that the moneys in question were not received by the defendant as a loan, but in payment for the sale of certain claim; and further, that, if the transaction was a loan, then the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The evidence was conflicting, and the learned court, in a charge as favorable to the defendant as he could ask, submitted both questions to the jury for determination. There is evidence to sustain their verdict for the plaintiff, and in our opinion, the evidence is preponderatingly in favor of the finding of the jury.

There are no exceptions that require discussion, and the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.,

All concur.