Case Name: MEYER v. SUBURBAN HOME CO.
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898-11-18
Citations: 54 N.Y.S. 568
Docket Number: 
Parties: MEYER v. SUBURBAN HOME CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 54
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
(25 Misc. Rep. 311.)
MEYER v. SUBURBAN HOME CO.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
November 18, 1898.)
1. Appeal—Review—Motion for Direction of Verdict.
A party who does not move for the direction of a verdict is thereby precluded from contending on appeal that there is no evidence to support the verdict.
3. Same—Jury Trial.
To review the facts of a jury trial the appeal must be from an order denying a new trial.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Adam Meyer against the Suburban Home Company. From a judgment for plaintiff', defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and COMAN" and O’DWYER, JJ.
Horace Grave, for appellant.
Michael J. Kelly, for respondent.

Opinion:
CONLAN, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict of a jury. The action was brought to recover commissions earned by the plaintiff as a salesman of real estate for the defendant. Judgment was entered on the 11th day of June, 1898. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Schuchman and a jury on the 16th and 17th days of June, 1898. The defense was that the plaintiff was not employed by the defendant, but by one Hewitt, who had no authority to employ the plaintiff for th'e defendant's company; and that Hewitt employed the plaintiff expressly as his servant, and not as the servant of the company. At the close of the testimony no motion was made to dismiss the complaint, or to direct a verdict for the defendant. This must be taken as an admission on the part of the defendant that there was evidence on which a jury could find for the plaintiff, and precludes it from saying that the verdict is without evidence to support it. Steinau v. Scheuer, 15 App. Div. 5, 43 N. Y. Supp. 1112; Peake v. Bell, 7 Hun, 454. Again, the appeal is from the judgment only, there being no appeal from the order denying the motion for the new trial. The facts were not brought up for review. Boos v. Insurance Co., 64 N. Y. 236. We have examined the exceptions taken by the defendant to the exclusion and admission of evidence on the trial, but find no error that calls for reversal of the judgment.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.