Case Name: Carlson v. Winterson
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-11
Citations: 1 Misc. 207
Docket Number: 
Parties: Carlson v. Winterson.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 207–207

Head Matter:
Carlson v. Winterson.
(City Court of New York—General Term,
November, 1892.)
Where a case on appeal does not disclose an order denying the motion for a new trial, the appellate court cannot review the questions of fact, hut must merely look to see if any errors of law were committed; the statement in the case of a motion to set aside the verdict, is not equivalent to an order.
Appeal from judgment entered on a verdict of the jury in favor of plaintiff.
E. F. Bullard, for defendant (appellant).
H. M. Hitchings, for plaintiff (respondent).

Opinion:
Ehrlich, Ch. J.
The case on appeal does not disclose any order denying the motion for a new trial. The statement in the case, of a motion to set aside the verdict is not equivalent to an order. In view of this fact, the court will not review any questions of fact, but merely look to see if any errors of law were committed. Code, § 767; Boos v. World M. L. I. Co., 4 Hun, 133; 64 N. Y. 236, 242; Ehrman v. Rothschild, 23 Hun, 273; Matthews v. Meyberg, 63 N. Y. 656; Coakley v. Mahar, 36 Hun, 159; Hinman v. Stillwell, 34 id. 178; Thurber v. Harlem, etc., Railroad Co., 60 N. Y. 326, 328. We have failed to discover any error in admitting or excluding evidence, or in passing on the requests to charge. Some of the propositions were correct, as abstract principles, but inapplicable to the state of the proofs presented.
The judgment appealed from must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.
Fitzsimons and Newburger, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.