Case Name: Preusser et al. v. Stockton et al.
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-06-01
Citations: 14 N.Y.S. 877
Docket Number: 
Parties: Preusser et al. v. Stockton et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 14
Pages: 877–878

Head Matter:
Preusser et al. v. Stockton et al.
(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Terra.
June 1, 1891.)
Appeal—Review—Weight op Evidence.
Where an issue is fairly submitted to the jury on conflicting evidence, the verdict will not be disturbed on appeal.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Richard E. Preusser and Matthew M. Looram against James M. Stockton, and Alexander C. Howe for $6,025, with interest from May 21, 1889, with costs, etc., arising out of the sale to defendants of two lots of stock of the Oregon & Transcontinental Company, one of 500 shares, May 14, 1889, ■and the other of 200 shares, May 15,1889,—the first sale aggregating $18,850 net; the second aggregating $6,925 net. From a judgment entered on a verdict for plaintiffs for the amount claimed, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made on the minutes of the judge, defendants appeal.
Argued before Daly, C. J., and Bischoff and Pryor, JJ.
Thaddeus D. Kenneson, for appellants. John Graham, for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial presents the point that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. The controversy turned- upon the question whether the plaintiffs or the defendants told the truth of the transaction between them. This issue was fairly submitted to the jury, upon the contradictory stories of the respective parties, and we perceive no reason for disturbing the verdict. In the exercise of their appropriate function, the jury accepted the version of the plaintiffs, and their finding is as clearly in conformity with the evidence as with the interests of justice. The appeal from the judgment challenges the validity of tlie appellants' exceptions; but, notwithstanding the ingenious argument of counsel, none of them appears of sufficient plausibility even to require or to justify serious discussion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.