Case Name: George Shaw, Appellant, v. Roovers Bros., Inc., et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1942-12-03
Citations: 289 N.Y. 348
Docket Number: 
Parties: George Shaw, Appellant, v. Roovers Bros., Inc., et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 289
Pages: 348–350

Head Matter:
George Shaw, Appellant, v. Roovers Bros., Inc., et al., Respondents.
Argued October 26, 1942;
decided December 3, 1942.
Ralph Stout, Stephen Callaghan and Harold A. Gates for appellant.
The trial court erred in dismissing the complaint. (Osipoff v. City of New York, 286 N. Y. 422; Richards v. Wiener Co., 207 N. Y. 59; Anthony v. American Glucose Co., 146 N. Y. 407; New Market Savings Bank v. Gillette, 100 Ill. 254; Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Roman, 269 N. Y. 451; Klauder v. Gabriels, 162 App. Div. 715; Halpin v. N. Y. Railways Corp., 250 App. Div. 613; 276 N. Y. 545; Oakes v. Cattaraugus Water Co., 143 N. Y. 430; Hall v. Herter Bros., 83 Hun, 19; Bath National Bank v. Sonnenstrahl, Inc., 249 N. Y. 391.)
William S. Over end and Samuel A. Feir for respondents.
The trial court properly dismissed the complaint. (C. N. Bank v. Clark, 139 N. Y. 307; Merchants Nat. Bank v. Clark, 139 N. Y. 314; First National Bank v. Wallis, 150 N. Y. 455; Brownless Co. v. Gandy, 125 Miss. 71; Main Read Grande Co. v. York, 89 Me. 54; Maynicke v. Central Realty Bond & Trust Co., 104 App. Div. 624; Cook v. Pettit, 252 App. Div. 881; Freifeld v. Groh’s Sons, 116 App. Div. 409; Van Vleet v. Jones, 75 Hun, 340; Flour City Nat. Bank v. Shire, 88 App. Div. 401; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 142 Misc. Rep. 150; Engel v. Simmons, 230 App. Div. 454; 257 N. Y. 612; Stanton v. Granger, 125 App. Div. 174; 193 N. Y. 656.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff produced evidence sufficient to sustain the special verdict, and the trial judge erred in dismissing the complaint. We may not review the order setting aside the verdict on the ground that it is " against the weight of the evidence " as well as on the ground that it is " contrary to law."
The judgments should be reversed-and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Lehman, Ch.- J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.
Judgments reversed, etc.